Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01404/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01404-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWARD POWELL,

Plaintiff,

v.

TA OPERATING CORPORATION dba

TRAVELCENTERS OF AMERICA, a

Delaware Corporation, Tti

HOLDINGS, a Nevada Corporation,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

New Case No:

1:05-cv-01404 SMS

SCHEDULING CONFERENCE ORDER

AND ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE

TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Discovery Cut-Off: 10/19/07

Non-Dispositive Motion

Filing Deadline: 10/31/07

Dispositive Motion Filing

Deadline: 11/15/07

Settlement Conference Date:

7/31/07 9:00 Ctrm. 8

Pre-Trial Conference

Date: 2/18/08 1:30 Ctrm. 7

Trial Date: 3/24/08 9:00

Ctrm. 7 (JT-5 days)

I. Date of Scheduling Conference.

February 16, 2006.

II. Appearances Of Counsel.

Bourdette & Partners by Miriam Bourdette, Esq., appeared on

behalf of Plaintiff. 

Greve, Clifford, Wengel & Paras, LLP, by Bradley R. Larson,

Case 1:05-cv-01404-SMS Document 15 Filed 02/22/06 Page 1 of 10
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

Esq., appeared on behalf of Defendants. 

III. Summary of Pleadings. 

1. Plaintiff Edward Powell, a long haul truck driver,

alleges that Defendant Tti negligently installed and TA

negligently maintained “park & views” in the Travel Center,

Arvin, California, owned and operated by TA. Plaintiff alleges

he tripped over an installed, but disconnected, “park & view” due

to insufficient lighting and no warning signs and fractured his

arm. Powell suffered additional pain because no one at the

Travel Center in Arvin would assist him in obtaining medical

care. He has had surgery, physical therapy and still has a

misaligned arm. Powell alleges that Tti and TA had knowledge of

the dangerous premises and entered into an indemnification

agreement on the eve of Tti’s filing for bankruptcy protection.

2. Defendant denies there was insufficient lighting and

that Tti has indemnified TA from all liability for injuries due

to the “park & views” sustained on its premises.

3. This is a negligence case. Plaintiff alleges that TA

had a duty to provide safe premises for the truckers who used the

facilities. TA breached that duty by failing to remove the

disconnected “park & views,” warn of the protruding “park &

views” or provide adequate lighting. Powell was injured. Powell

has economic and non-economic damages resulting from his injury.

4. Plaintiff alleges that the agreement between TA and Tti

does not relieve TA of all liability for maintaining safe

premises for the truckers using its facilities.

5. TA did not have a duty to remove the protruding “park &

views” once they were disconnected to prevent harm to the

Case 1:05-cv-01404-SMS Document 15 Filed 02/22/06 Page 2 of 10
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

truckers using the facility nor did TA breach any duty owed to

Plaintiff.

6. TA had no legal duty to put warnings or barriers around

the disconnected “park & views” or to provide more lighting.

7. Plaintiff was careless and negligent and/or at fault

for his accident and resulting injuries. Plaintiff’s contention

that he was refused medical attention by TA personnel is disputed

and, in any event, not actionable.

8. The contract between TA and Tti obligates the latter to

defend and indemnity the former herein. Further, Tti was

contractually obligated to secure liability insurance at its

expense naming TA as an additional insured.

IV. Orders Re Amendments To Pleadings.

1. There are no proposed amendments to the pleadings. The

contract between TA and Tti states that any disagreements

thereunder be resolved by arbitration. TA may need to file a

cross-complaint if its defense and indemnity obligation, if any,

is not accepted by Tti and/or its liability insurer, a

circumstance complicated by Tti’s bankruptcy filing.

2. The parties will petition the bankruptcy court to lift

the automatic stay in proceedings to allow parties to proceed

against the insurance coverage only. Assuming there is no self

insured reserve that would affect the bankruptcy estate, the

courts routinely grant said petitions. 

V. Factual Summary.

A. Admitted Facts Which Are Deemed Proven Without Further

Proceedings. 

1. Powell reported the incident to manager Diane

Case 1:05-cv-01404-SMS Document 15 Filed 02/22/06 Page 3 of 10
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

Coles who wrote an incident report. 

2. Powell had to arrange to get to Bakersfield’s

Mercy Hospital from Arvin himself, without assistance from Diane

Coles.

3. There is a written agreement between Tti and TA,

to which Powell is not a party, under which Tti is to defend and

indemnity TA, and secure insurance for TA’s benefit, for all

claims associated with the “park & views.” 

B. Contested Facts.

1. Powell was a paying customer at the Travel Center

at Wheeler Ridge, at I-5 and Laval Road East in Arvin. 

2. Powell tripped over a “park & view.”

3. There was insufficient lighting in the parking

lot.

4. Powell fractured his arm, had several surgeries

and continues to have pain and a misaligned arm.

5. The agreement indemnifies TA against all claims

associated with the Park & views.”

6. TA contests facts 1, 2, and 4 on the basis of

insufficient information.

VI. Legal Issues.

A. Uncontested.

1. Jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 

2. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391.

3. As to supplemental claims, the parties agree that

the substantive law of the State of California provides the rule

of decision. 

///

Case 1:05-cv-01404-SMS Document 15 Filed 02/22/06 Page 4 of 10
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

B. Contested. 

1. All remaining legal issues are contested.

VII. Consent to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction.

1. The parties have consented to transfer the case to the

Magistrate Judge for all purposes, including trial. The case is

renumbered to 1:05-cv-01404 SMS. All future pleadings filed in

this case shall show the new case number. 

VIII. Corporate Identification Statement.

1. Any nongovernmental corporate party to any action in

this court shall file a statement identifying all its parent

corporations and listing any entity that owns 10% or more of the

party's equity securities. A party shall file the statement with

its initial pleading filed in this court and shall supplement the

statement within a reasonable time of any change in the

information. 

IX. Discovery Plan and Cut-Off Date.

1. The parties are ordered to complete all discovery on

or before October 19, 2007.

2. The parties are directed to disclose all expert

witnesses, in writing, on or before August 31, 2007. Any

supplemental expert disclosures will be made on or before

September 21, 2007. The parties will comply with the provisions

of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a) regarding their expert

designations. Local Rule 16-240(a) notwithstanding, the written

designation of experts shall be made pursuant to F. R. Civ. P.

Rule 26(a)(2), (A) and (B) and shall include all information

required thereunder. Failure to designate experts in compliance

with this order may result in the Court excluding the testimony

Case 1:05-cv-01404-SMS Document 15 Filed 02/22/06 Page 5 of 10
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

or other evidence offered through such experts that are not

disclosed pursuant to this order.

3. The provisions of F. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4) shall 

apply to all discovery relating to experts and their opinions. 

Experts may be fully prepared to be examined on all subjects and

opinions included in the designation. Failure to comply will

result in the imposition of sanctions. 

X. Pre-Trial Motion Schedule.

1. All Non-Dispositive Pre-Trial Motions, including any

discovery motions, will be filed on or before October 31, 2007,

and heard on December 7, 2007, at 10:00 a.m. before Magistrate

Judge Sandra M. Snyder in Courtroom 7. 

2. In scheduling such motions, the Magistrate

Judge may grant applications for an order shortening time

pursuant to Local Rule 142(d). However, if counsel does not

obtain an order shortening time, the notice of motion must comply

with Local Rule 251. 

3. All Dispositive Pre-Trial Motions are to be

filed no later than November 15, 2007, and will be heard on

January 4, 2008, at 10:00 a.m. before the Honorable Sandra M.

Snyder, United States Magistrate Judge, in Courtroom 7, 6th

Floor. In scheduling such motions, counsel shall comply with

Local Rule 230. 

XI. Pre-Trial Conference Date.

1. February 18, 2008, at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 7, 6th

Floor, before the Honorable Sandra M. Snyder, United States

Magistrate Judge. 

2. The parties are ordered to file a Joint PreCase 1:05-cv-01404-SMS Document 15 Filed 02/22/06 Page 6 of 10
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

7

Trial Statement pursuant to Local Rule 281(a)(2). 

3. Counsel's attention is directed to Rules 281 

and 282 of the Local Rules of Practice for the Eastern District

of California, as to the obligations of counsel in preparing for

the pre-trial conference. The Court will insist upon strict

compliance with those rules.

XII. Trial Date.

1. March 24, 2008, at the hour of 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom

7, 6th Floor, before the Honorable Sandra M. Snyder, United

States Magistrate Judge. 

2. This is a jury trial.

3. Counsels' Estimate Of Trial Time:

a. 5 days.

4. Counsels' attention is directed to Local Rules

of Practice for the Eastern District of California, Rule 285. 

XIII. Settlement Conference.

1. A Settlement Conference is scheduled for July 31, 2007,

at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 8 before the Honorable Lawrence J.

O’Neill, United States Magistrate Judge. 

2. Unless otherwise permitted in advance by the

Court, the attorneys who will try the case shall appear at the

Settlement Conference with the parties and the person or persons

having full authority to negotiate and settle the case on any

terms at the conference. 

3. Permission for a party [not attorney] to attend

by telephone may be granted upon request, by letter, with a copy

to the other parties, if the party [not attorney] lives and works

outside the Eastern District of California, and attendance in

Case 1:05-cv-01404-SMS Document 15 Filed 02/22/06 Page 7 of 10
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

8

person would constitute a hardship. If telephone attendance is

allowed, the party must be immediately available throughout the

conference until excused regardless of time zone differences. 

Any other special arrangements desired in cases where settlement

authority rests with a governing body, shall also be proposed in

advance by letter copied to all other parties. 

4. Confidential Settlement Conference Statement.

At least five (5) days prior to the Settlement Conference the

parties shall submit, directly to the Magistrate Judge's

chambers, a confidential settlement conference statement. The

statement should not be filed with the Clerk of the Court nor

served on any other party. Each statement shall be clearly

marked "confidential" with the date and time of the Settlement

Conference indicated prominently thereon. Counsel are urged to

request the return of their statements if settlement is not

achieved and if such a request is not made the Court will dispose

of the statement.

5. The Confidential Settlement Conference

Statement shall include the following: 

a. A brief statement of the facts of the 

case.

b. A brief statement of the claims and 

defenses, i.e., statutory or other grounds upon which the claims

are founded; a forthright evaluation of the parties' likelihood

of prevailing on the claims and defenses; and a description of

the major issues in dispute.

c. A summary of the proceedings to date.

d. An estimate of the cost and time to be

Case 1:05-cv-01404-SMS Document 15 Filed 02/22/06 Page 8 of 10
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

9

expended for further discovery, pre-trial and trial.

e. The relief sought.

f. The parties' position on settlement,

including present demands and offers and a history of past

settlement discussions, offers and demands. 

XIV. Request For Bifurcation, Appointment Of Special Master, 

Or Other Techniques To Shorten Trial. 

1. None. 

XV. Related Matters Pending.

1. There are no related matters except for Tti’s

bankruptcy and worker’s comp case of the Plaintiff. 

XVI. Compliance With Federal Procedure.

1. The Court requires compliance with the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice for the

Eastern District of California. To aid the court in the

efficient administration of this case, all counsel are directed

to familiarize themselves with the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice of the Eastern District

of California, and keep abreast of any amendments thereto.

XVII. Effect Of This Order.

1. The foregoing order represents the best

estimate of the court and counsel as to the agenda most suitable

to bring this case to resolution. The trial date reserved is

specifically reserved for this case. If the parties determine at

any time that the schedule outlined in this order cannot be met,

counsel are ordered to notify the court immediately of that fact

so that adjustments may be made, either by stipulation or by

subsequent scheduling conference. 

Case 1:05-cv-01404-SMS Document 15 Filed 02/22/06 Page 9 of 10
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

10

2. Stipulations extending the deadlines contained

herein will not be considered unless they are accompanied by

affidavits or declarations, and where appropriate attached

exhibits, which establish good cause for granting the relief

requested. 

3. Failure to comply with this order may result in

the imposition of sanctions. 

DATED: February 16, 2006.

/s/ OLIVER W. WANGER

 

 Oliver W. Wanger

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

powell v. ta operating sch con

Case 1:05-cv-01404-SMS Document 15 Filed 02/22/06 Page 10 of 10