Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00826/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00826-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

STIPULATION AND ORDER 

1

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SOLVESON CRANE COMPANY, ) 

) 

Plaintiff, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

D.H. BLATTNER & SONS, INC., et al., ) 

) 

Defendants. ) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

_____________________________________ ) 

No. 1:05-CV-00826-OWW-SMS 

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED 

ORDER CONTINUING 

SCHEDULING CONFERENCE 

AND INITIAL DISCLOSURES 

Date: October 19, 2005 

Time: 8:45 a.m. 

Place: Courtroom 2 

The Honorable Oliver W. Wanger 

 

 

Plaintiff Solveson Crane Company (“Solveson”) and Defendant D.H. 

Blattner & Sons, Inc. (“Blattner”) respectfully request the Court to continue the 

Scheduling Conference, scheduled for October 19, 2005, and the initial Rule 26 

disclosures, based on the following facts: 

1. On or about January 14, 2005, Solveson filed a voluntary 

Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Petition, In re Solveson Crane Company, United States 

Bankruptcy Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 05-20490-A-11. Solveson 

was in the business of supplying cranes and related equipment and labor on 

construction jobs. 

CHARLES POST (California State Bar No. 160443)

W. SCOTT CAMERON (California State Bar No. 229828) 

WEINTRAUB GENSHLEA CHEDIAK 

400 Capitol Mall, 11th Floor 

Sacramento, California 95814 

Telephone: (916) 558-6000 

Facsimile: (916) 446-1611 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

SOLVESON CRANE COMPANY 

Case 1:05-cv-00826-OWW -SMS Document 26 Filed 10/06/05 Page 1 of 5
STIPULATION AND ORDER 

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. On or about May 6, 2005, Solveson, as a debtor in possession, 

filed this lawsuit with the Kern County Superior Court, Case No. S-1500-CV. In the 

Complaint, Solveson alleges it is owed in excess of $4,797,608.84 for labor and 

materials it supplied on a construction project for the erection of windmill towers at the 

Oasis Wind Farm in Mojave, California. The complaint contains causes of action for 

breach of contract, unjust enrichment, quantum meruit, violation of California’s “prompt 

payment” statutes, and foreclosure on a mechanic’s lien. Blattner was the general 

contractor on the construction project. 

3. On or about May 10, 2005, Solveson’s Chapter 11 bankruptcy case 

was converted to Chapter 7 and Larry Gray was appointed as Chapter 7 Trustee (In re 

Solveson Crane Company, Inc., United States Bankruptcy Court, Eastern District of 

California, Case No. 05-20490-A-7). 

4. On or about June 24, 2005, Blattner filed with this Court a Notice of 

Removal, alleging this Court has jurisdiction over Solveson’s lawsuit pursuant to Title 

28 U.S.C. Section 1334(b) because it is related to a case under Title 11 and pursuant 

to Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1332 based on diversity jurisdiction. 

5. On or about July 1, 2005, Blattner filed its Answer to the 

Complaint. 

6. On or about July 25, 2005, Solveson filed a motion to remand the 

case. The motion was calendared to be heard on September 9, 2005. 

7. On or about August 19, 2005, Blattner filed a motion to stay the 

instant case and compel arbitration. The motion was calendared to be heard on 

September 26, 2005. On August 22, 2005, the Court continued the hearing on 

Solveson’s remand motion to September 26, 2005, so that it could be heard 

concurrently with Blattner’s motion to stay the case and compel arbitration. 

8. Blattner also wishes to assert counterclaims against Solveson that 

arise from the same set of facts as Solveson’s claims against Blattner, but Blattner 

cannot immediately do so because of the automatic stay, Bankruptcy Code 

Case 1:05-cv-00826-OWW -SMS Document 26 Filed 10/06/05 Page 2 of 5
STIPULATION AND ORDER 

3

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

Section 362(a). Counsel for Blattner and Solveson have entered into a stipulation 

granting limited relief from the automatic stay to Blattner, which, if it is approved by the 

Bankruptcy Court, will allow Blattner to assert such counterclaims in this case (with the 

approval of this Court). That stipulation is being submitted to the Bankruptcy Court for 

approval (on notice to all creditors of the Solveson Bankruptcy estate). 

9. With the appointment of Larry Gray as Chapter 7 Trustee over the 

estate of Solveson, it is anticipated there will be a substitution of counsel made within 

the next few days.1

10. With the appointment of Mr. Gray as Chapter 7 Trustee, the parties 

have engaged in discussions regarding possible methods of alternative dispute 

resolution, and they have agreed to conduct a voluntary mediation to attempt to obtain 

a global resolution of Solveson’s claims and Blattner’s counterclaims. The parties are 

in the process of selecting a mediator. The parties anticipate the process of selecting a 

mediator and a date for the mediation can be completed promptly once new counsel for 

Mr. Gray has substituted into the case. 

11. Therefore, on or about September 12, 2005, the parties submitted 

to the Court a joint stipulation continuing the hearings on the motion to remand the 

case and the motion to stay the case and compel arbitration. The stipulation stated the 

parties anticipate holding the mediation within the next 60 days, and, accordingly, 

requested the Court to continue the hearings on both motions to December 5, 2005 (or 

another date and time convenient to the Court). 

12. The stipulation was so ordered by the Court on September 16, 

2005. The Court continued the hearings on both motions to December 12, 2005, to be 

heard by the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger. 

 

1 As Chapter 7 Trustee, Mr. Gray has the authority to prosecute this case in place 

of Solveson, since it is property of the bankruptcy estate. If the Court wishes, 

Mr. Gray will file appropriate papers to substitute himself as plaintiff in place of 

Solveson. 

Case 1:05-cv-00826-OWW -SMS Document 26 Filed 10/06/05 Page 3 of 5
STIPULATION AND ORDER 

4

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

13. The parties intend forthwith to engage in a limited document 

exchange in a good faith effort to improve the likelihood of success that this matter will 

be resolved by mediation. It is the intent of the parties to conduct the mediation in 

October or November 2005. 

14. If the mediation does not dispose of the entire case, the motions, 

which will be heard on December 12, 2005, are both dispositive motions regarding the 

issue of whether this case will remain with this Court. 

15. There is currently a scheduling conference scheduled for 

October 19, 2005, at 8:45 a.m. 

16. Based on the fact that the parties have agreed to mediate this case 

in an effort to resolve the entire case and that if the mediation is not successful the 

Court will then decide two potentially dispositive motions, it is in the interests of judicial 

efficiency and economy to continue the Scheduling Conference and the initial 

disclosures until it is determined whether the matter is resolved by way of mediation or 

whether this Court will retain jurisdiction over the case in response to the two pending 

motions. Moreover, as indicated above, the pleadings are not yet set because Blattner 

has not yet been granted permission to file its counterclaim. This matter should not be 

set for a Scheduling Conference until the pleadings are set. 

17. Rule 16(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure specifically 

allows the timing of the scheduling conference and related matters to be modified by 

leave of the Court on a showing of good cause. 

Case 1:05-cv-00826-OWW -SMS Document 26 Filed 10/06/05 Page 4 of 5
STIPULATION AND ORDER 

5

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

18. Therefore, the parties jointly request that the Scheduling 

Conference be continued to a date approximately 30 days from the December 12, 

2005, hearing date on the two pending motions to allow the parties an opportunity to 

resolve this case by way of mediation. 

Dated: October 4, 2005 WEINTRAUB GENSHLEA CHEDIAK 

 By: /s/ W. Scott Cameron 

 W. SCOTT CAMERON 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

SOLVESON CRANE COMPANY 

Dated: October 4, 2005 THELEN REID & PRIEST, LLP 

 By: /s/ Margaret E. Garms (as authorized on October 4, 2005)

 MARGARET E. GARMS 

Attorneys for Defendant 

D.H. BLATTNER & SONS, INC. 

O R D E R

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

THE SCHEDULING CONFERENCE IN THIS MATTER IS CONTINUED 

FROM OCTOBER 19, 2005 TO FEBRUARY 17, 2006 AT 8:45 a.m. 

Dated: October 5, 2005 _/s/ OLIVER W. WANGER_________ 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 1:05-cv-00826-OWW -SMS Document 26 Filed 10/06/05 Page 5 of 5