Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00891/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00891-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Contract Dispute

---

1 

STIPULATION AND ORDER AMENDING CASE SCHEDULE 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

JAMES H. WILKINS (SBN 116364) 

j.wilkins@wdcllp.com

WILKINS, DROLSHAGEN & CZESHINSKI LLP 

6785 N. Willow Avenue 

Fresno, California 93710 

Tel: (559) 438-2390 

Fax: (559) 438-2393 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

BRUCE KOPITAR 

MARC S. HINES (SBN 140065) 

mhines@hinessmith.com

CHRISTINE M. EMANUELSON (SBN 221269) 

cemanuelson@hinessmith.com

HINES SMITH CARDER DINCEL BLAND LLP

3080 Bristol Street, Suite 540 

Costa Mesa, California 92626 

Tel.: (714) 513-1122 

Fax: (714) 513-1123 

Attorneys for Defendant 

NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY 

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

BRUCE KOPITAR, an individual, 

 Plaintiff, 

vs. 

NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE 

COMPANY, and DOES 1 through 50, 

inclusive, 

 Defendants. 

CASE NO. 1:07-CV-00891-OWW-GSA

STIPULATION AND ORDER 

AMENDING CASE SCHEDULE 

 

 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:07-cv-00891-OWW -JLT Document 40 Filed 03/18/10 Page 1 of 6
2 

STIPULATION AND ORDER AMENDING CASE SCHEDULE 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Defendant, Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company (“Defendant” or 

“Nationwide”) and Plaintiff Bruce Kopitar (“Plaintiff”), through their respective counsel 

of record, jointly submit the following Stipulation to continue the trial and pre-trial dates 

and deadlines set by the Court one hundred twenty (120) days. The Stipulation is made 

pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 6(b) and 16(b)(4) and, Eastern District Civil 

Local Rule 144. 

I. SYNOPSIS OF CASE 

Plaintiff alleges that he incurred a loss when a malfunction in a steam room at his 

home caused it damage; that the steam caused a large amount of moisture to permeate the 

house; and that there was a determination by a reclamation contractor that there was a 

substantial amount of mold in the residence. Plaintiff alleges that he had a policy of 

insurance with Nationwide and that he was entitled to coverage under the policy for his 

loss. Defendant disputes whether the damage to the residence arose from a covered loss 

and the extent of the damage. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant acted in bad faith, 

which Defendant denies. 

On June 21, 2007, this case was removed from Tulare Superior Court to this Court 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1441(a), (b) and (c). Defendant, through its prior counsel, filed an 

answer on June 26, 2007. 

Discovery

Plaintiff has served his first set of request for production of documents, request for 

admissions and two sets of special interrogatories on Defendant, to which Defendant has 

served responses. Defendant has served its first set of request for production of 

documents, request for admissions and two sets of special interrogatories to Plaintiff, to 

which Plaintiff has served responses. The parties have produced over 4,000 pages of 

documents in discovery. Plaintiff’s first set of interrogatory responses is 140 pages. 

Defendant has taken a portion of Plaintiff’s deposition but has not yet completed it. The 

parties are in the midst of retaining and preparing experts for their reports and 

depositions. Discovery is ongoing. 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:07-cv-00891-OWW -JLT Document 40 Filed 03/18/10 Page 2 of 6
3 

STIPULATION AND ORDER AMENDING CASE SCHEDULE 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Pending Motions

Nationwide filed a Motion for Sanctions for Spoliation of Evidence on September 

30, 2009. Plaintiff filed his opposition to this motion on November 20, 2009, and 

Nationwide filed its reply brief on November 30, 2009. This motion was heard on 

December 7, 2009 and taken under submission. The outcome of this motion will 

significantly affect the scope of issues in this case, as the motion involves whether 

Plaintiff’s claims for mold damage will be dismissed. 

II. STIPULATION OF PARTIES TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL AND 

CORRESPONDING PRE-TRIAL DATES BASED ON GOOD CAUSE 

The parties stipulate and agree to a short continuance of the pre-trial and trial dates 

one hundred twenty (120) days for the following reasons: (1) Defendant’s counsel is very 

new to the case, having recently being substituted in as counsel on December 14, 2009, 

and the continuance will allow Defendant’s counsel sufficient time to familiarize itself 

with the case; (2) the continuance will allow the parties time to adjust their respective 

strategies after the Court rules on the still-pending motion re: spoliation of evidence, 

which will have a significant impact on the scope of issues in the case; and (3) 

Defendant’s counsel requires more time to designate expert witnesses, prepare expert 

witness reports and evaluate what further discovery it needs to conduct. The March 25, 

2010 deadline to disclose expert witnesses and exchange expert witness reports is fast 

approaching, and Defendant’s counsel has not had sufficient time to prepare expert 

witness disclosures and reports in the short time that it has been on the case, nor to 

evaluate further discovery it needs to conduct. 

This is a complex case. The claim was investigated over a course of years and 

generated numerous documents. Plaintiff claims a significant amount of damage. In his 

original proof of loss submitted to Nationwide, he claimed $1,374,721.80 in policy 

benefits. He also claims additional tort damages on his bad faith cause of action. There 

have been two law firms involved representing Plaintiff, and now three representing 

Defendant, over the course of the Plaintiff’s insurance claim and this lawsuit. 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:07-cv-00891-OWW -JLT Document 40 Filed 03/18/10 Page 3 of 6
4 

STIPULATION AND ORDER AMENDING CASE SCHEDULE 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Consequently, the correspondence, pleadings, discovery and other document files that 

Defendant’s new counsel needs to review and digest is quite substantial. Defendant has 

produced over 3,695 pages of documents and Plaintiff 568 pages, just in discovery. 

There are numerous other case files to review besides the document productions. 

The parties stipulate to a short continuance of the dates in order to allow sufficient 

time for Defendant’s new counsel to become familiar with the case and to prepare for all 

discovery. Without this short continuance of the dates, the parties will be prejudiced. 

The parties have been complying with the current dates and deadlines set forth in 

the Court’s case schedule. To date, none of the cut-off dates have passed. A short 

continuance of the dates and deadlines would serve to avoid any potential fees and costs, 

as well as waste of judicial resources and time, filing potential motions after the cut-off 

dates for leave to amend the scheduling order. To this end, the parties stipulate and 

propose a 120-day continuance of the dates as follows: 

EVENT CURRENT 

DATE/TIME 

NEW DATE/TIME 

Disclosure of Expert 

Witnesses including 

Exchange of Reports 

March 25, 2010 July 26, 2010 

Supplemental Expert 

Disclosure and Reports 

April 18, 2010 August 18, 2010 

Non-Dispositive Motion 

Hearing Deadline 

April 19, 2010 August 20, 2010 

Expert Discovery Cut Off May 3, 2010 September 3, 2010 

Non-Expert Discovery 

Cut Off 

May 17, 2010 September 17, 2010 

Settlement Conference May 24, 2010, 10:30 a.m. September 27, 2010, 10:30 

a.m. 

Dispositive Motion 

Hearing Deadline 

July 26, 2010 November 29, 2010 

Pretrial Conference August 30, 2010, 11:00 

a.m., Courtroom 3 

January 3, 2010, 11:00 

a.m., Courtroom 3 

Trial October 5, 2010, 9:00 a.m. 

Courtroom 3 

February 8, 2011, 9:00 

a.m. Courtroom 3 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:07-cv-00891-OWW -JLT Document 40 Filed 03/18/10 Page 4 of 6
5 

STIPULATION AND ORDER AMENDING CASE SCHEDULE 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

The Court has previously granted two extensions in this case upon filings of 

stipulations between Plaintiff’s counsel and Defendant’s prior counsel. First, on May 19, 

2008, the Court granted the parties’ stipulation to continue the settlement conference and 

trial date, which necessitated rescheduling the deadlines in the Court’s scheduling order, 

including discovery deadlines, the deadline to file dispositive motions, and the pretrial 

conference date. [Docket No. 15]. Second, on January 20, 2009, the Court issued an 

Order amending the case schedule by extending the dates listed above. [Docket No. 19]. 

The Court granted one additional extension of sixty (60) days, on January 8, 2010, based 

upon a stipulation between Defendant’s current counsel and Plaintiff’s counsel [Docket 

Nos. 35, 37], but Defendant’s new counsel needs additional time in light of the 

magnitude of the documents and issues in this case. 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 6(b), 16(a) and 16(b)(4) give the Court broad 

discretion to regulate pre-trial matters, to manage its calendar, grant continuance of 

scheduling dates, and to direct the parties in a manner that expedites disposition of the 

action and facilitates settlement. As set forth herein, and in light of the fact that there is a 

pending motion that will significantly affect the issues in this case, good cause exists for 

the Court to grant the continuance under any of the Rules. 

IT IS SO STIPULATED. 

Dated: March 15, 2010 WILKINS, DROLSHAGEN &

CZESHINSKI LLP 

 /s/ James H. Wilkins 

 James H. Wilkins 

 Attorney for Plaintiff 

BRUCE KOPITAR 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:07-cv-00891-OWW -JLT Document 40 Filed 03/18/10 Page 5 of 6
6 

STIPULATION AND ORDER AMENDING CASE SCHEDULE 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Dated: March 15, 2010 HINES SMITH CARDER DINCEL BLAND 

LLP

 /s/ Marc S. Hines 

 Marc S. Hines 

 Christine M. Emanuelson 

 Attorneys for Defendant 

NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE 

COMPANY 

ORDER

Based on the foregoing Stipulation and good cause appearing therefore, IT IS 

HEREBY ORDERED that the Case Schedule be, and the same hereby is, revised as set 

forth above in the Stipulation. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 17, 2010 /s/ OLIVER W. WANGER 

 Oliver W. Wanger 

 U.S. District Judge 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:07-cv-00891-OWW -JLT Document 40 Filed 03/18/10 Page 6 of 6