Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00122/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00122-3/pdf.json

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

---

-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 

 

SEDGWICK, DETERT, MORAN & ARNOLD LLP 

JAMES P. DIWIK (Bar No. 164016) 

JOEL M. LONG (Bar No. 226061) 

One Market Plaza, Steuart Tower, 8th Floor 

San Francisco, California 94105 

Telephone: (415) 781-7900 

Facsimile: (415) 781-2635 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Company 

and American Motorists Insurance Company 

CASSINAT LAW CORPORATION 

JOHN E. CASSINAT (Bar No. 131214) 

RONALD L. CARELLO (Bar No. 179238) 

4815 Laguna Park Drive, Suite C 

Elk Grove, California 95758 

Telephone: (916) 393-3030 

Facsimile: (916) 393-4238 

Attorneys for Defendants 

Carothers Construction, Inc., David L. Carothers 

and Terri L. Carothers 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

Pursuant to Local Rule 83-143, and for good cause shown below, plaintiffs American 

Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Company and American Motorists Insurance Company and 

defendants Carothers Construction, Inc. (“Carothers Construction”), David L. Carothers and 

Terri L. Carothers respectfully request and stipulate to an additional 75-day stay of this action 

pending finalization of a settlement in principle between the parties. 

AMERICAN MANUFACTURERS 

MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, 

et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

CAROTHERS CONSTRUCTION, INC., 

et al., 

Defendants. 

CASE NO. 2:05-CV-0122-MCE-GGH 

STIPULATION AND ORDER STAYING 

ACTION FOR AN ADDITIONAL 75 DAYS 

PENDING FINALIZATION OF 

SETTLEMENT 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:05-cv-00122-MCE-KJN Document 24 Filed 04/13/06 Page 1 of 4
 -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 

 

In support of this Stipulation, the parties state as follows: 

1. The parties have reached an agreement in principle to settle this action. The 

settlement, however, is subject to finalizing the terms and conditions of, and executing, a written 

settlement agreement, the effectiveness of which will be contingent upon the parties satisfying 

several conditions, including, among other things, resolving certain claims under the surety bonds 

issued by plaintiffs on behalf of defendant Carothers Construction and securing the release to 

plaintiffs of bonded contract funds from public works construction projects on which Carothers 

Construction was the general contractor. 

2. On January 18, 2006, in order that the parties could focus their time and effort on 

finalizing the settlement while preserving the existing pretrial schedule (i.e., the time periods 

between the various pretrial deadlines and the trial date) under the Court’s September 20, 2005 

Pretrial (Status) Scheduling Order (“Scheduling Order”),1the parties submitted a Stipulation and 

[Proposed] Order Staying Action for 75 Days Pending Finalization of Settlement (the 

“Stipulation”). The Stipulation was approved and entered by the Court on January 23, 2006, and 

it required the parties to notify the Court if a settlement was not finalized by April 3, 2006. 

3. Since the filing of the Stipulation, a draft settlement agreement has been circulated 

among the parties, and the parties are still in the process of finalizing the terms and conditions of 

the same. Assuming that the parties are successful, which should be determined in the near term, 

it is anticipated that the agreement will provide for a 45-day time period within which the 

conditions referenced in Paragraph 1 above must be satisfied. 

4. In order to permit the parties to (a) finalize a written settlement agreement, and (b) 

determine whether the conditions to effectiveness thereunder will be satisfied, the parties believe 

that a second 75-day stay of this matter is appropriate. 

5. The parties agree that if within the 75-day stay period any party determines that 

either (a) a written settlement agreement cannot be finalized, or (b) any one or more of the 

settlement conditions thereunder cannot be satisfied, then any party may so advise the Court and 

 

1 As modified by the Stipulation and Order for limited Extension of Fact Discovery Deadline

entered by the Court on December 15, 2005. 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:05-cv-00122-MCE-KJN Document 24 Filed 04/13/06 Page 2 of 4
 -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 

 

submit a proposed revised Scheduling Order advancing the pretrial and trial dates contained 

within the current Scheduling Order by the number of days that the action has been stayed. 

6. Otherwise, if the parties do not achieve a final, binding settlement within the next 

75 days, or by no later than June 19, 2006,2then the parties will so advise the Court and submit to 

the Court a proposed revised Scheduling Order advancing the pretrial and trial dates contained 

within the current Scheduling Order by the number of days that the action has been stayed. 

7. The parties do not presently anticipate seeking a further stay of this matter in the 

event that a final, binding settlement is not reached within the next 75 days. 

8. Counsel for the parties have met and conferred in connection with the preparation 

of this Stipulation and agree that the stay requested herein is in the interests of justice, in the best 

interests of the parties, and will increase the likelihood of settlement before trial. 

Based on the foregoing Stipulation, the parties respectfully request that the Court stay this 

action for 75 days from the date of filing this Stipulation as described above. 

DATED: April 3, 2006 SEDGWICK, DETERT, MORAN & ARNOLD LLP 

By: s/Joel M. Long 

Joel M. Long 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Company and 

American Motorists Insurance Company 

DATED: April 3, 2006 CASSINAT LAW CORPORATION 

By: s/Ronald L. Carello 

Ronald L. Carello 

Attorneys for Defendants 

Carothers Construction, David L. Carothers and Terri L. 

Carothers 

 

2 Advanced to the first court day following the 75th day, which falls on a Saturday. 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:05-cv-00122-MCE-KJN Document 24 Filed 04/13/06 Page 3 of 4
 -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 

 

SIGNATURE ATTESTATION: I, Joel M. Long, counsel for plaintiffs, attest that concurrence in 

the filing of this document has been obtained by Ronald L. Carello, Esq., counsel for defendants 

as set forth above. 

By: s/Joel M. Long 

Joel M. Long 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

 American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Company and 

 American Motorists Insurance Company 

IT IS SO ORDERED: 

Dated: April 12, 2006 

__________________________________ 

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:05-cv-00122-MCE-KJN Document 24 Filed 04/13/06 Page 4 of 4