Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-01890/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-01890-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Insurance Contract

---

1 

FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING ADMISSIBILITY OF 

UNDISPUTED FACTS IN LIEU OF PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE AT TRIAL – 

CASE NO. S-02-1890 WBS GGH 

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 

109209.1 380.14844 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SCOTTSDALE INSURANCE COMPANY, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

HENRY MORENO, ROSE A. MORENO, LA 

MANSION DEL RIO, WALTER HARVEY, 

and DOES 1 through 100, 

inclusive, 

 Defendants. 

CASE NO. S-02-1890 WBS GGH 

FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL STIPULATION 

AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING 

ADMISSIBILITY OF UNDISPUTED FACTS 

IN LIEU OF PRESENTATION OF 

EVIDENCE AT TRIAL 

[L.R. 83-143] 

Trial Date : June 13, 2006 

Time : 9:00 a.m. 

Dept : Court Room No. 5 

Judge : William B. Shubb 

Plaintiff SCOTTSDALE INSURANCE COMPANY and Defendant WALTER 

HARVEY, through their respective counsel of record, hereby enter 

into this first supplemental stipulation regarding the 

admissibility of undisputed facts in lieu of presentation of 

evidence at trial commencing on June 13, 2006 at 9:00 a.m., in 

the above-referenced United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of California. 

/// 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:02-cv-01890-WBS-GGH Document 179 Filed 06/05/06 Page 1 of 3
2 

FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING ADMISSIBILITY OF 

UNDISPUTED FACTS IN LIEU OF PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE AT TRIAL – 

CASE NO. S-02-1890 WBS GGH 

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 

109209.1 380.14844 

This first supplemental stipulation is entered by and 

between the parties so as to facilitate trial of this matter, is 

binding on the parties and relieves each of producing evidence to 

prove the stipulated facts. (Spaulding v. City of Tulsa, 

Oklahoma (10th Cir. 1996) 95 F.3d 1492, 1501-1502.) Moreover, the 

scope of this stipulation includes both the matters actually 

stipulated, as well as, reasonable inferences that may be drawn 

therefrom. (United States v. Baker (9th Cir. 1979) 589 F.2d 

1008.) By entering into this first supplemental stipulation 

neither party waives and expressly reserves the right to request 

a jury instruction regarding the effect of this stipulation. 

While stipulations conclusively establish a fact, the factfinder 

ultimately determines the weight to be given the stipulated fact. 

(O’Connor v. City & County of Denver (10th Cir. 1990) 894 F.2d 

1210, 1225-1226.) 

The stipulated facts are as follows: 

I. FACTS REGARDING THE SCOTTSDALE INSURANCE COMPANY POLICY.

1. Scottsdale Insurance Company (“Scottsdale”) issued a 

general liability insurance policy number CPS0238393 to named 

insured Henry A. Moreno (d/b/a La Mansion Del Rio) (hereinafter 

the “Scottsdale Policy”). 

2. The Scottsdale Policy incepted on April 23, 1998. 

3. The Scottsdale Policy was cancelled on September 17, 

1998. 

/// 

/// 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:02-cv-01890-WBS-GGH Document 179 Filed 06/05/06 Page 2 of 3
3 

FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING ADMISSIBILITY OF 

UNDISPUTED FACTS IN LIEU OF PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE AT TRIAL – 

CASE NO. S-02-1890 WBS GGH 

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 

109209.1 380.14844 

4. The Scottsdale Policy was cancelled because Henry 

Moreno failed to pay the premium. 

5. For purposes of this matter, the relevant policy period 

was April 23, 1998 through September 17, 1998. 

DATED: June 2, 2006 SELMAN BREITMAN LLP

By: 

LINDA WENDELL HSU (SBN 162971) 

JAMES R. TENERO (SBN 201023) 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

SCOTTSDALE INSURANCE COMPANY 

DATED: June 2, 2006 BORTON, PETRINI & CONRON LLP

By: /s/ MARK S. NEWMAN 

(as authorized on 06/02/06) 

MARK S. NEWMAN (SBN 107012) 

Attorneys for Defendant 

WALTER HARVEY 

DATED: June 2, 2006 LAW OFFICES OF POOLE & PEREIRA 

By: /s/ PAUL A. PEREIRA 

(as authorized on 06/02/06) 

PAUL A. PEREIRA (SBN 128539) 

Attorneys for Defendant 

WALTER HARVEY 

IT IS SO ORDERED, 

DATED: June 2, 2006 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:02-cv-01890-WBS-GGH Document 179 Filed 06/05/06 Page 3 of 3