Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-00276/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-00276-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 245
Nature of Suit: Real Property Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Product Liability

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

USAA GENERAL INDEMNITY CO.

Plaintiff,

v.

ELECTROLUX NORTH AMERICA, 

INC.,

Defendant.

No. 2:23–cv–00276–CKD

ORDER

READ THIS ORDER CAREFULLY. IT CONTAINS IMPORTANT DATES THAT 

THE COURT WILL STRICTLY ENFORCE AND WITH WHICH ALL COUNSEL AND 

PARTIES MUST COMPLY. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE TERMS OF THIS ORDER 

MAY RESULT IN THE IMPOSITION OF MONETARY AND ALL OTHER APPROPRIATE 

SANCTIONS, INCLUDING DISMISSAL OR AN ORDER OF JUDGMENT.

The parties’ joint status report is before the court.1 (ECF No. 11.)

Having reviewed the joint status report, the Court now issues the following pretrial 

scheduling order.

////

1 After all parties consented to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge for all 

purposes pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), this action was reassigned to the undersigned for all 

further proceedings and entry of final judgment. (ECF No. 6.)

Case 2:23-cv-00276-CKD Document 12 Filed 04/08/24 Page 1 of 6
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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Plaintiff brings negligence, strict liability, and breach of express and implied warranty 

claims against defendant. (ECF No. 1-1 at 8.) These claims arose after fire at the property of 

plaintiff’s insured, Jeffrey Galvan. (Id. at 8, para. 3.) Plaintiff alleges that the refrigerator, which 

was manufactured, sold, and distributed by defendant, started the fire and caused damages in the 

amount of $579,237.78, which plaintiff paid to its insured under a homeowner’s policy. (Id. at 

para. 9). This action was removed from state court on February 10, 2023. (ECF No. 1)

SERVICE OF PROCESS

All parties have been served with the operative complaint. No further service is permitted 

except with leave of Court, good cause having been shown.

JOINDER OF PARTIES/AMENDMENT OF PLEADINGS

No further joinder of parties or amendments to pleadings are permitted except with leave 

of Court, good cause having been shown.

JURISDICTION/VENUE

Jurisdiction and venue are undisputed and found to be proper.

INITIAL DISCLOSURES

The parties have exchanged initial disclosures. (ECF No. 11 at 2.) 

CHANGES TO LIMITATIONS ON DISCOVERY

The parties do not seek any changes to the Rule 26(a) disclosure rules. (Id.) They do not 

intend to seek discovery in phases or limited to or focused on any particular issue. The parties do 

not anticipate requiring any changes to the number of interrogatories or depositions allowed. 

DISCOVERY DEADLINES, PROCEDURES FOR DISCOVERY DISPUTES

Non-expert discovery shall be completed2 by January 18, 2025. Any discovery-related 

motions must conform to the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this 

Court’s Local Rules, including Local Rule 251. Judge Delaney generally hears civil motions on 

2 “Completed” means (1) all discovery shall have been conducted so that all depositions have 

been taken and (2) any disputes related to discovery shall have been resolved by appropriate order 

if necessary and, where discovery has been ordered, the order has been complied with.

Case 2:23-cv-00276-CKD Document 12 Filed 04/08/24 Page 2 of 6
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

3

Wednesdays at 10:00 a.m.

Prior to filing any discovery-related motions, the parties are required to meet and confer in 

good faith in an attempt to resolve their discovery disputes informally and without court 

intervention. Such meet and confer shall take place in person, or at a minimum, via a telephonic 

conference. The mere exchange of letters or e-mails alone is not sufficient. As part of their joint 

statement related to a discovery motion submitted pursuant to Local Rule 251, the parties shall 

also specifically outline: (a) what meet-and-confer efforts were undertaken; (b) when and where 

such discussions took place; (c) who was present; and (d) how the parties’ disputes were 

narrowed as a result of such discussions. Failure to comply with these requirements may result in 

summary denial of any discovery motion. 

The Court strongly encourages the use of informal telephonic discovery conferences with 

the Court in lieu of formal discovery motion practice. The procedures and conditions for 

requesting and conducting such an informal telephonic discovery conference are outlined in 

Judge Delaney’s “Order re Informal Telephonic Conferences re Discovery Disputes,” posted on 

the Court’s website at http://www.caed.uscourts.gov/caednew/index.cfm/judges/all-judges/5055/. 

Additionally, subject to the Court’s availability, the Court will also rule on disputes encountered 

at oral depositions, so as to avoid such depositions from breaking down. In the course of the 

deposition, the parties may contact Judge Delaney’s courtroom deputy clerk at (916) 930-4004 to 

inquire regarding Judge Delaney’s availability. However, the parties are cautioned that these 

informal procedures are not to be abused, and the Court may impose appropriate sanctions on an 

offending party or parties, even in the course of informal discovery conferences. 

EXPERT DISCLOSURES AND DISCOVERY

The parties shall disclose any expert witnesses in accordance with the specifications of 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) no later than February 15, 2025. Any rebuttal expert 

disclosures shall be made in accordance with the specifications of Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 26(a)(2) no later than March 15, 2025. Expert disclosures shall be filed with the Court 

and served upon all other parties. All expert discovery shall be completed (see fn. 3) by April 5, 

2025. The same procedures for fact–discovery disputes apply to expert–discovery disputes.

Case 2:23-cv-00276-CKD Document 12 Filed 04/08/24 Page 3 of 6
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

4

An expert witness not timely disclosed will not be permitted to testify unless the party 

offering the witness demonstrates that: (a) the necessity of the witness could not have been 

reasonably anticipated at the time that the expert disclosures were due; (b) the Court and opposing 

counsel were promptly notified upon discovery of the witness; and (c) the witness was promptly 

proffered for deposition. Failure to provide the information required by Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 26(a)(2) along with the expert disclosures may lead to preclusion of the expert’s 

testimony or other appropriate sanctions.

LAW AND MOTION

All law and motion, except as to discovery-related matters, shall be completed (i.e. heard) 

by April 30, 2025. Counsel and/or parties proceeding without counsel are cautioned to refer to 

the Local Rules regarding the requirements for noticing such motions on the Court’s regularly 

scheduled law and motion calendar, including, but not limited to, Local Rule 230. Judge Delaney 

generally hears civil motions on Wednesdays at 10:00 a.m. This paragraph does not preclude 

motions for continuances, motions in limine related to trial, temporary restraining orders, or other 

emergency applications, for which the Court may set a special briefing schedule, if necessary or 

appropriate. 

ALL PURELY LEGAL ISSUES ARE TO BE RESOLVED BY TIMELY PRETRIAL 

MOTION. The purpose of law and motion is to narrow and refine the legal issues raised by the 

case, as well as to dispose of those issues that are susceptible to resolution without trial by pretrial 

motion. To accomplish that purpose, the parties need to identify and fully research the issues 

presented by the case, then examine those issues in light of the evidence obtained through 

discovery. If it appears to counsel after examining the legal issues and facts that an issue can be 

resolved by pretrial motion, counsel are to file the appropriate motion consistent with the law and 

motion cutoff set forth above. Conversely, motions in limine are procedural devices designed to 

address the admissibility of evidence. THE COURT WILL LOOK WITH DISFAVOR UPON 

SUBSTANTIVE MOTIONS PRESENTED UNDER THE GUISE OF MOTIONS IN LIMINE 

AT THE TIME OF TRIAL.

////

Case 2:23-cv-00276-CKD Document 12 Filed 04/08/24 Page 4 of 6
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

5

FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE/TRIAL SETTING 

The Court declines to set final pretrial conference and trial dates at this time. Instead, the 

Court orders the parties to submit a Notice of Trial Readiness on one of the following timelines:

A. After resolution of any pending dispositive motions, the parties are to submit the 

Notice not later than thirty (30) days after receiving the court’s ruling(s) on the last 

filed dispositive motion(s); or

B. If the parties do not intend to file dispositive motions, the parties are ordered to file the 

Notice not later than one hundred twenty (120) days after the close of discovery and 

the notice must include statements of intent to forgo the filing of dispositive motions. 

In the Notice of Trial Readiness, the parties are to set forth the appropriateness of special

procedures, their estimated trial length, any request for a jury, their availability for trial, and if the 

parties are willing to attend a settlement conference. The Notice shall also estimate how many 

court days each party will require to present its case, including opening statements and closing 

arguments. The parties' estimate shall include time necessary for jury selection, time necessary to 

finalize jury instructions and instruct the jury. After review of the parties’ Joint Notice of Trial 

Readiness, the court will issue an order that sets forth dates for a final pretrial conference and 

trial.

OBJECTIONS

Any objections to this pretrial scheduling order shall be filed within seven (7) days.

SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE

The parties request that a settlement conference be scheduled. (ECF No. 11 at 4.) Within 

fourteen (14) days of this order, the parties SHALL contact the undersigned’s courtroom deputy

clerk to inquire as to the availability of another magistrate judge for a settlement conference.

VDRP

The parties completed the VDRP process, but the case did not settle. 

MODIFICATION OF THIS SCHEDULING ORDER

The parties are reminded that pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4), this 

order shall not be modified except by leave of court upon a showing of “good cause.” See

Case 2:23-cv-00276-CKD Document 12 Filed 04/08/24 Page 5 of 6
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

6

Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604 (9th Cir. 1992). Mere agreement by the

parties pursuant to a stipulation does not constitute good cause. Nor does the unavailability of 

witnesses or counsel, except in extraordinary circumstances, constitute good cause.

Dated: April 7, 2024

21.usaa.0276

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:23-cv-00276-CKD Document 12 Filed 04/08/24 Page 6 of 6