Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01818/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01818-15/pdf.json

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

---

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

This matter was determined to be suitable for decision without *

oral argument. L.R. 78-230(h). The caption has been modified to

reflect the dismissal of Blue Shield of California Life and Health

Insurance Company on January 11, 2008.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAMERON HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION, )

) 2:07-CV-1818-GEB-DAD

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) ORDER*

)

PREMERA BLUE CROSS, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

)

Some of the Defendants in this action have engaged in

settlement discussions with Plaintiff, and Plaintiff and those

Defendants represent that the settlement discussions are fruitful and

could result in reaching a settlement within sixty days if the

Scheduling Order filed on November 21, 2007 is modified to allow them

to work out the precise details of a settlement agreement. These

parties also have pending motions: Defendant Premera Blue Cross moves

to dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, and Plaintiff moves

Case 2:07-cv-01818-GEB-DAD Document 171 Filed 04/11/08 Page 1 of 2
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

2

for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint. These parties, however,

have stipulated that Plaintiff should be granted leave to file a

Second Amended Complaint and that the dismissal motion is withdrawn. 

In accordance with this portion of these parties’ stipulation: (1) the

pending dismissal motion (Docket #54) is withdrawn; (2) Plaintiff is

granted twenty days leave to file a Second Amended Complaint; and (3)

Plaintiff shall serve any new defendants added in the Second Amended

Complaint within forty-five days of filing that complaint.

It is questionable, however, whether the Scheduling Order

should be amended as the parties propose, because the stipulation

reveals that some Defendants have not responded to the First Amended

Complaint and Plaintiff has not explained how the action will proceed

against those Defendants. Further, Plaintiff’s Second Amended

Complaint will add new defendants in this action, and the stipulating

parties fail to explain why the new defendants should not be provided

an opportunity to participate in the scheduling of this action. 

Therefore, the Scheduling Order filed November 21, 2007 is vacated,

and a scheduling conference is scheduled for August 4, 2008 at 9 a.m.

A joint status report shall be filed no later than 14 days before the

scheduling conference.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 11, 2008

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:07-cv-01818-GEB-DAD Document 171 Filed 04/11/08 Page 2 of 2