Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00826/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00826-3/pdf.json

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

- 1 -

Stipulation and Proposed Order Continuing Hearings 893938v2 35894/0001

MARY E. OLDEN (109373) 

ANDRÉ K. CAMPBELL (188585) 

McDONOUGH HOLLAND & ALLEN PC 

Attorneys at Law 

555 Capitol Mall, 9th Floor 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Phone: 916.444.3900 

Fax: 916.442.2780 

Attorneys for Lawrence G. Gray 

as Bankruptcy Trustee for 

Solveson Crane Company 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

FRESNO DIVISION 

SOLVESON CRANE COMPANY, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

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

Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

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

STIPULATION AND ORDER 

CONTINUING SCHEDULING 

CONFERENCE 

The Honorable Oliver W. Wanger 

Lawrence G. Gray,

1

as bankruptcy trustee for plaintiff Solveson Crane Company and as 

transferee of its interest pursuant to 11 U.S.C. section 541 and Rule 25 of the Fed. R. Civ. P., and 

defendant D. H. Blattner & Sons, Inc. ("Blattner" or "defendant") hereby agree to and request that 

the Court issue its order continuing until June 15, 2006 the scheduling conference currently set for 

February 17, 2006, 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. Solveson was in the business of supplying cranes and related 

 

1 Mr. Gray will, if the Court wishes, file a request to substitute himself as assignee of the plaintiff's 

claim. 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:05-cv-00826-OWW -SMS Document 44 Filed 02/01/06 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

Stipulation and Proposed Order Continuing Hearings 893938v2 35894/0001

equipment and labor on construction jobs. 

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. Solveson alleges in the complaint that 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 of a mechanic’s lien. Blattner was the original 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 Mr. Gray was appointed chapter 7 trustee. 

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. 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). 

9. 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 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:05-cv-00826-OWW -SMS Document 44 Filed 02/01/06 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

Stipulation and Proposed Order Continuing Hearings 893938v2 35894/0001

W. Wanger. 

10. At the time of Mr. Gray's appointment, plaintiff was represented by Weintraub 

Genshlea Chediak which had filed the action on Solveson's behalf, and was still counsel when 

Mr. Gray succeeded to plaintiff's right to prosecute the action. In the interim, two attorneys with that 

firm who had primary responsibility for representing plaintiff, Donna T. Parkinson and Thomas G. 

Trost, left the firm. As a result, Mr. Gray sought other counsel. On November 21, 2005, the 

bankruptcy court appointed McDonough Holland & Allen PC as counsel for Mr. Gray in this action. 

11. At the request of the parties, the Court continued to March 20, 2006 the hearings on 

the motions for remand and to compel arbitration, on the bases that Mr. Gray's new counsel needed 

time to familiarize itself with the case and that the mediation, if successful, would moot the two 

motions. 

12. The parties have selected a mediator, Kenneth C. Gibbs, and Mr. Gibbs has agreed to 

mediate the dispute. The parties selected a mediation date, February 16, 2006. 

13. If the mediation does not dispose of the entire case, the motions are both dispositive 

motions regarding the issue of whether this case will remain with this Court. 

14. 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. 

15. 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. 

WHEREFORE, the parties jointly request that the Court issue its order so providing. 

/ / / 

[signatures on following page] 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:05-cv-00826-OWW -SMS Document 44 Filed 02/01/06 Page 3 of 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

- 4 -

Stipulation and Proposed Order Continuing Hearings 893938v2 35894/0001

Dated: Jan. 30, 2006 

MCDONOUGH HOLLAND & ALLEN PC 

Attorneys at Law 

By: /s/ Mary E. Olden 

Mary E. Olden 

Attorneys for Lawrence G. Gray, as Bankruptcy 

Trustee for Solveson Crane Company 

Dated: 1/30/06 

FABYANSKE, WESTRA, HART & THOMSON, 

P.A. 

By: /s/ Kyle E. Hart 

Kyle E. Hart 

Attorneys for Defendants D. H. Blattner & Sons, Inc., 

et al. 

IT IS SO ORDERED 

Dated: Jan. 30, 2006

/s/ OLIVER W. WANGER

 

HON. OLIVER W. WANGER 

JUDGE OF THE U. S. DISTRICT COURT 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:05-cv-00826-OWW -SMS Document 44 Filed 02/01/06 Page 4 of 4