Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_09-cv-00928/USCOURTS-almd-2_09-cv-00928-3/pdf.json

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

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

ALABAMA MUNICIPAL INSURANCE )

CORPORATION, )

)

Plaintiff )

Counterdefendant, )

)

v. ) CASE NO. 2:09-CV-928-WKW [WO]

)

ALLIANT INSURANCE SERVICES, )

INC., formerly known as DRIVER )

ALLIANT INSURANCE SERVICES, )

formerly known as ROBERT F. DRIVER )

ASSOCIATES, )

)

Defendant )

Counterplaintiff. )

AMENDED ORDER ON PRETRIAL CONFERENCE

A pretrial hearing was held in this case on February 4, 2010, wherein the following

proceedings were held and actions taken:

1. PARTIES AND TRIAL COUNSEL:

For Plaintiff: Scott M. Speagle, Esq.

Thomas M. McCarthy, Esq.

Webster, Henry, Lyons, White, Bradwell & Black, P.C.

P.O. Box 239

Montgomery, Alabama 36101

For Defendant: John W. Scott, Esq.

Kimberly W. Geisler, Esq.

Michael G. Green, Esq.

Scott Dukes & Geisler, P.C.

211 Twenty-Second Street North

Birmingham, Alabama 35203

Case 2:09-cv-00928-WKW-CSC Document 94 Filed 03/14/11 Page 1 of 11
COUNSEL APPEARING AT PRETRIAL HEARING:

For Plaintiff: Scott M. Speagle, Esq.

Thomas M. McCarthy, Esq.

For Defendant: John W. Scott, Esq.

Kimberly W. Geisler, Esq. 

2. JURISDICTION AND VENUE: The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Venue is proper in the Middle District of Alabama, Northern Division. The

parties do not contest jurisdiction or venue.

3. PLEADINGS: The following pleadings and amendments were allowed:

(a) Complaint

(b) Amended Complaint

(c) Answer to Amended Complaint and Affirmative Defenses

(d) Amended Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and 

Counterclaim

(e) Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Counterclaim

4. CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES:

(a) The Plaintiff/Counterdefendant:1

AMIC contends that for policy years 2000-2005 it purchased reinsurance through Alliant,

who at all times represented itself to be and acted as a Managing General Agent. Alliant was

contractually bound to AMIC to obtain, provide, handle, and adjust any losses suffered by AMIC

and covered by the reinsurance.

The undisputed facts show that in 2000, AMIC issued a request for broker services. Alliant

bid for and lost that bid. AMIC’s broker contract was awarded to Tony Abella, Jr., of Arthur

Gallagher & Co. Mr. Abella was AMIC’s broker at all times during this litigation. 

Shortly thereafter, AMIC and Mr. Abella, AMIC’s broker, were contacted again by Alliant,

which offered the PEPIP program, the largest property program in the world. Alliant represented

that it was the MGA for this program and that AMIC was not able to access the program directly. 

AMIC entered into a contract with Alliant. Pursuant to that contract, Alliant could, and did, make

final underwriting decisions for the insurer, such as extending the ‘00-‘01 policy term from May

2001 to November 2001. Alliant could, and did, produce all of the public entity portion of any

1

 Alliant set forth its “legal contentions” in this section. AMIC’s legal contentions are adequately presented in its

Response in Opposition to Alliant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. “Legal Contentions” as part of a “proposed

pre-trial order” are inappropriate. 

2

Case 2:09-cv-00928-WKW-CSC Document 94 Filed 03/14/11 Page 2 of 11
reinsurer’s business. AMIC paid Alliant fifteen percent of the cost of the reinsurance premium for

Alliant’s services. 

AMIC timely submitted to Alliant its final, primary layer aggregate property losses under

the 2000-2001 policy on February 1, 2005 to Alliant. Those property losses were owed to AMIC

on or before May 2, 2005. However, the reinsurer for this policy did not receive notice of these

property losses until the summer of 2008. The alleged reinsurer, more importantly, had never seen

the insurance policy that Alliant now states the reinsurer issued, until the fall of 2008.

 

Alliant breached its contract with AMIC by failing to timely submit the aggregate losses due

AMIC under this policy, which amounts to $511,903.64, including interest through the date the trial

will be submitted.

In the fall of 2001, Alliant attempted to move AMIC’s block of business from one reinsurer

to another. Alliant issued AMIC another PEPIP policy, this time including another entity,

DiscoverRe, on the risk. Once again, AMIC paid Alliant fifteen percent of the cost of the reinsurance

premium for its services. The policy year was from November 1, 2001 to November 1, 2002. 

Alliant did not bind and issue this policy until after the policy year ended. 

On February 1, 2005, AMIC timely submitted its primary layer aggregate property losses for

the 2001-2002 policy year. The losses were due to be paid on or before May 2, 2005. The reinsurer

did not receive notice of these losses until the interest calculation in March 2008. AMIC was paid

for the losses in August 2008. Alliant breached its contract with AMIC by failing to properly

transmit the losses. AMIC is due $32,100.28 in lost interest, through the date of the initial filings

and complaints. 

In the fall of 2002, Alliant once again began moving AMIC’s block of reinsurance. Alliant

bound and issued a policy to AMIC, this time on a DiscoverRe policy form rather than a PEPIP

form, for the policy term of November 1, 2002, to November 1, 2003. However, Alliant did not bind

or issue this policy to AMIC until February 2004. AMIC paid Alliant fifteen percent of the cost of

the reinsurance premium. 

On February 1, 2005, AMIC timely submitted its primary layer aggregate property losses for

the 2002-2003 policy year. The losses were due to be paid on or before May 2, 2005. The reinsurer

did not receive notice of these losses until March 2008. AMIC was paid for the losses in January

2009. Alliant breached its contract with AMIC by failing to properly transmit the losses. AMIC

is due $156,238.98 in lost interest, through the date of the complaint initial filing, and will

supplement prior to trial. Also, AMIC’s broker, Tony Abella, Jr. found an error in Alliant’s

calculation of AMIC’s property losses that resulted in an underpayment of those losses for $38,273. 

It was Alliant’s responsibility as the MGA to properly calculate those losses. 

In November 2003, Alliant bound and issued another policy to AMIC on the DiscoverRe

policy form. The policy term was from November 2003 to November 2004. On February 1,2005,

AMIC timely submitted its primary layer aggregate property losses for the 2003-2004 policy year. 

3

Case 2:09-cv-00928-WKW-CSC Document 94 Filed 03/14/11 Page 3 of 11
The losses were due to be paid on or before May 2, 2005. The reinsurer did not receive notice of

these losses, until March 2008. AMIC was paid for the losses in January 2009. Alliant breached

its contract with AMIC by failing to properly transmit the losses. AMIC is due $46,639.55 in lost

interest, through the date of the complaint initial filing, and will supplement the interest calculation

prior to trial. 

In November 2004, Alliant bound and issued another policy to AMIC on the DiscoverRe

policy form. The policy term was from November 2004 to November 2005. On April 8, 2008,

AMIC timely submitted its primary layer aggregate property losses for the 2004-2005 policy

year. The losses were due to be paid on or before July 8, 2008. The reinsurer did not receive

notice of these losses until the summer of 2008. AMIC was paid for the losses in February 2009. 

Alliant breached its contract with AMIC by failing to properly transmit the losses. AMIC is due

$64,983.43 in lost interest, through the date of the complaint initial filing, and will supplement

the interest calculation prior to trial.

Alliant breached its MGA contract with AMIC. AMIC is owed the aggregate loss for the

2000-2001 policy year as well as the miscalculation for the 2002-2003 policy year. AMIC is

also due its lost interest for the 2001-2002, 2002-2003, 2003-2004, and 2004-2005. 

(b) The Defendant/Counterclaimant:

I. Factual Contentions 

Alliant contends that it acted as a reinsurance broker for AMIC for the years 2000-2005, and

that it obtained property reinsurance policies for AMIC for those years. Alliant contends that it

fulfilled any obligations it may have owed AMIC as a reinsurance broker. AMIC alleges in its

Amended Complaint that Alliant acted not as a reinsurance broker, but as a Managing General

Agent (or “MGA”) for AMIC to obtain reinsurance for Plaintiff for the years 2000-2005. AMIC

contends that as an MGA, Alliant had additional contractual obligations that a broker would not

have had, including unspecified “claims handling” obligations. AMIC has never produced a written

MGA contract between it and Alliant. Alliant contends that AMIC’s failure to produce such a

contract is the result of the simple fact that there is not and never has been such a contract (or

contracts). 

AMIC specifically and plainly alleges in its Amended Complaint that there was an MGA

contract in existence between it and Alliant for the years 2000-2005. AMIC alleges in its Amended

Complaint that Alliant owed certain duties to AMIC as its MGA. AMIC alleges that Alliant

breached its duties as an MGA for AMIC by failing to “properly transmit” notice of certain of

AMIC’s losses to the reinsurers. As a result, AMIC is claiming that the losses were not timely paid

by the reinsurers and that as a result Alliant is responsible for the payment of interest on the losses

for the 2001-2005 years, and in the case of the Lloyd’s of London policy in effect for 2000/2001

years, is also responsible for the payment of the losses themselves, as well as interest. Alliant denies

these allegations in their entirety.

4

Case 2:09-cv-00928-WKW-CSC Document 94 Filed 03/14/11 Page 4 of 11
AMIC is an insurance company located in Montgomery, Alabama. It is licensed and

regulated by the Alabama Department of Insurance. AMIC writes certain types of insurance,

including property and casualty insurance, for towns and municipalities in the State of Alabama. 

Alliant acted as a reinsurance broker in procuring for AMIC the reinsurance policies at issue

in this case, namely certain property reinsurance policies for AMIC for the years 2000-2005. As a

reinsurance broker, Alliant was paid a commission of 15% by the reinsurers, a portion of which was

paid to other reinsurance intermediaries involved in the placement of the reinsurance at issue. 

AMIC did not pay Alliant anything for its services as a reinsurance broker or for its services in

procuring the reinsurance at issue.

“Reinsurance” is defined as “a contractual arrangement whereby a reinsurer, for

consideration, agrees to indemnify a reinsured for all or part of a loss that the reinsured may sustain

under a policy or policies of insurance issued by the reinsured to an original insured. Thus,

reinsurance is a contract by which one reinsurer insures the risks of another insurer and the true

reinsurer is merely an insurance company or underwriter which deals only with other insurance

companies as its policyholders. The reinsurer agrees to indemnify the reinsured on the risk

transferred or ceded.” J. Diaconis & D. Hammond, Reinsurance Law § 1:1.1 (4th ed.

2009)(collecting cases)(internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

As broker, Alliant obtained the following reinsurance for AMIC, as set forth for the most part

in AMIC’s Amended Complaint:

a. In 2000-2001, Alliant obtained for AMIC reinsurance policy LU0022884. The 

 reinsurers for that policy were Those Various Underwriters of Lloyd’s of London 

(“Lloyd’s”). The policy term for the Lloyd’s reinsurance policy was May 1, 

2000 to November 1, 2001.

b. In 2001-2002, Alliant obtained for AMIC a reinsurance policy, which was insured 

by both Discover Re and Kemper Insurance, formerly known as Specialty 

 National Insurance Co. The Discover Re policy was issued under policy no. 

D003F0007 and the Specialty National policy was issued as policy no. 3XZ 

162352 00. Each of these policies covered 50% of the risk reinsured. The term 

for each of these policies was from November 1, 2001 to November 1, 2002.

c. In 2002-2003, Alliant obtained for AMIC reinsurance policy D003R00028. The 

reinsurer for this policy was Discover Re. The term for the policy was from 

November 1, 2002 to November 1, 2003.

d. In 2003-2004, Alliant obtained for AMIC reinsurance policy D0003R00034. The 

reinsurer for this policy was Discover Re. The term for the policy was from 

November 1, 2003 to November 1, 2004.

e. In 2004-2005, Alliant obtained for AMIC reinsurance policy D0003R00040. The 

5

Case 2:09-cv-00928-WKW-CSC Document 94 Filed 03/14/11 Page 5 of 11
reinsurer for this policy was Discover Re. The term for the policy was from 

November 1, 2004 to November 1, 2005.

AMIC made certain loss claims under the reinsurance policies at issue, commonly referred to

as the “aggregate property loss claims”, beginning in the early 2000s. The aggregate property loss

claims were made on claims paid for property losses incurred by AMIC’s underlying insureds. The

claims adjuster for the reinsurers, McLarens Young, audited certain files at AMIC’s Montgomery

headquarters in August 2004 for the 2001/2002 and 2002/2003 aggregate property loss claims. 

Although not contractually obligated to do so, Alliant forwarded these loss claims to a third party

claims administrator, McLarens Young. McLarens Young audited and adjusted these claims on

behalf of the reinsurers. McLarens Young was paid by the reinsurers for its services. It is a

common practice to have a claims adjuster review losses prior to payment of those losses by

reinsurance companies and there was nothing unusual about McLarens Young’s role in adjusting

the aggregate property loss claims at issue in this lawsuit. Chris Stafford was the primary person

responsible for adjusting the claims for McLarens Young. AMIC admits that the aggregate loss

numbers its submits can change over the years for several years after the end of a particular policy

year, and that AMIC itself was adjusting the amount of some of the aggregate property losses as late

as 2010. 

The claims submitted by AMIC under the reinsurance policies issued by Kemper and Discover

Re were paid by these reinsurers. In fact, Kemper and Discover Re paid AMIC over $1.2 million

in aggregate property losses. AMIC claims, however, that Kemper and Discover Re were slow in

paying the claims. AMIC in its Amended Complaint alleges that these claims were not timely paid

because Alliant did not timely forward the claims to the reinsurers for payment. Alliant contends

that the record clearly shows that although it had no contractual obligation to do so, it promptly

forwarded the losses to McLarens Young when received them from AMIC. Furthermore, the record

shows that although not contractually bound to do so, Alliant followed up consistently with

McLarens Young to press for payment of the losses. Nonetheless, AMIC contends that Alliant is

responsible for alleged lost interest on these aggregate property losses, totaling several hundred

thousand dollars. AMIC has never pursued the reinsurers for its purported losses. 

As to the Lloyd’s policy, which was in effect from 2000-2001, Steve Wells, the President of 

AMIC, entered into a Gentlemen’s Agreement whereby AMIC said that it would not submit any

losses for payment by the reinsurer under that policy. Alliant maintains that AMIC’s agreement not

to make claims for aggregate losses under the Lloyd’s policy was premised upon the fact that AMIC

added additional municipalities as insureds during the policy period, that as a result of these

additional insureds, the “total insured values” under the Lloyd’s policy more than doubled, and that

if AMIC made claims under the Lloyd’s policy, it would be obligated to make additional premium

payments that would be in excess of the recoverable losses. This is the one of the positions that

Lloyd’s has taken with respect to the claims subsequently by AMIC under the Lloyd’s policy. 

AMIC’s version of the Gentlemen’s Agreement was that AMIC would not make any aggregate

loss claims under the Lloyd’s policy as long as Alliant, in the words of Steve Wells, “treated me

fairly.” When asked what he meant by that, Wells testified that AMIC agreed that it would not make

6

Case 2:09-cv-00928-WKW-CSC Document 94 Filed 03/14/11 Page 6 of 11
any aggregate loss claims under the Lloyd’s policy as long as AMIC was being paid in a timely

fashion for the aggregate loss claims under the other reinsurance policies. Wells, years after the

expiration of the Lloyd’s policy, insisted that Alliant submit the 2000/2001 aggregate property loss

claims to Lloyd’s despite the existence of the Gentlemen’s Agreement and Alliant’s reliance

thereon.

While AMIC’s version of the Gentlemen’s Agreement differs somewhat than Alliant’s, both

interpretations are fundamentally similar in that AMIC agreed with and so informed Alliant that it

would not make claims for any aggregate losses under the Lloyd’s policy. Nonetheless, AMIC now

seeks to hold Alliant responsible for payment of both the losses under the Lloyd’s policy and the

purported lost interest, although it did not submit those losses until years after the Lloyd’s policy

had expired and despite the fact AMIC never paid the additional premiums associated with more

than doubling the total insured values under the Lloyd’s policy. AMIC has never sued Lloyd’s or

demanded arbitration against it for payment of these losses. 

II. Legal Contentions

AMIC’s theories of the case and assertions as to Alliant’s role have been constantly changing

throughout this litigation. Early on, AMIC admitted that Alliant was in fact a broker, which is

accurate. In its Amended Complaint – the controlling pleading in this case – AMIC asserts that

Alliant had an MGA contract with AMIC and served as an MGA for AMIC, with certain amorphous

and unspecified duties and responsibilities. AMIC’s Amended Complaint contains a single count

for breach of contract against Alliant alleging that Alliant failed to timely transmit the losses to the

reinsurers for payment in violation of its purported MGA contract with AMIC. 

By the time of its summary judgment response brief, AMIC was asserting variously and

contradictorily that Alliant was its MGA, was an MGA for the reinsurers, was a “Reinsurance

Intermediary-Manager” under Alabama law, and was actually the reinsurer on the various

reinsurance policies at issue in this case. As set out in detail in Alliant’s summary judgment

materials, AMIC’s creation of new claims and theories in an attempt to avoid summary judgment

is contrary to the Scheduling Order governing this case, the applicable Rules of Civil Procedure and

the mandates of the Eleventh Circuit.

AMIC’s Amended Complaint controls in this case. Alliant has taken discovery, litigated this

case, and filed a summary judgment motion based upon the allegations and breach of contract claim

in the Amended Complaint. The Amended Complaint clearly alleges that Alliant had an MGA

contract with Alliant and acted as AMIC’s MGA in regards to the reinsurance policies at issue. The

Amended Complaint at ¶ 38 states in a simple and clear declarative sentence: “Alliant and AMIC

entered into an MGA contract.” At ¶ 40, AMIC states: “Alliant is in breach of the MGA contract

with AMIC because it failed to timely transmit losses suffered by AMIC pursuant to the reinsurance

policies obtained in 2000-2001, 2001-2002, 2002-2003, 2003-2004, and 2004-2005.” AMIC also

specifically identifies the reinsurers on the reinsurance policies at issue, namely Those Various

Underwriters at Lloyd’s, Kemper and Discover Re. Steve Wells, the President of AMIC and its

7

Case 2:09-cv-00928-WKW-CSC Document 94 Filed 03/14/11 Page 7 of 11
corporate representative, testified that the alleged MGA contract at issue in this case was between

AMIC and Alliant. Alliant objects to any attempt by AMIC to amend its pleadings at this late date

to assert claims or allegations inconsistent or contradictory to the claims and allegations in the

Amended Complaint. 

There was no MGA contract between Alliant and AMIC. Nor was there any contract that

obligated Alliant to ensure that the reinsurers paid the aggregate property losses timely or at all. 

Alliant served as a reinsurer broker and it procured reinsurance coverage for AMIC. Alliant was

not paid a penny by AMIC for its reinsurance brokerage services or for any other services. Alliant

was paid a commission by the reinsurers out of the premium payments made for the reinsurance

policies. Alliant was not a party to any of the reinsurance contracts and is in no way liable on the

reinsurance contracts for payment of the aggregate property losses. AMIC has not produced any

contracts that show Alliant was obligated in any way to AMIC in the various roles that AMIC has

alleged Alliant played in the course of this litigation. AMIC’s case instead rests upon unwarranted

and unsustainable inferences from isolated documents taken from a large universe of documents in

this case. 

AMIC’s breach of contract claim thus fails for a number of reasons. A number of these

reasons are set forth in detail in Alliant’s summary judgment brief and in its reply brief. Under

Alabama statutory law and insurance regulations, Alliant was not – and legally could not have been

– a Managing General Agent for AMIC. Alliant does not come within the statutory definition of a

Managing General Agent or even the definition of an MGA offered by AMIC’s expert witness, Gary

Martin. Second, AMIC has been unable to identify any contract between it and Alliant that

establishes an MGA relationship or any relationship for that matter, much less establishes the terms

or conditions of any such contract. Any alleged contract thus fails for indefiniteness. Moreover,

AMIC has admitted that it did not pay Alliant any consideration for this purported MGA contract. 

Third, as the alleged MGA contract could not have been performed within one year, it is

barred by the statute of frauds. Moreover, and in any event, the record clearly shows that Alliant

forwarded the claims in a timely manner to the reinsurers and followed up consistently to press for

payment. 

The breach of contract claim as to the Lloyd’s policy also fails because of the Gentlemen’s

Agreement, whereby Steve Wells agreed not to submit AMIC’s aggregate property losses, and then

did not submit them until years after the Lloyd’s policy had terminated. Alliant relied on AMIC’s

and Wells’s misrepresentations regarding the Gentlemen’s Agreement, as well as AMIC’s own lack

of action in submitting these claims, and did not submit these losses to Lloyd’s until years after the

expiration of the Lloyd’s policy when Wells apparently changed his mind about the Gentlemen’s

Agreement. As such, AMIC is estopped and barred from pursuing its claim in this action against

Alliant as to the Lloyd’s losses on various legal and equitable grounds. In addition, Alliant is

entitled to recover its damages – the costs and expenses of defending this claim – based upon

AMIC’s fraudulent statements regarding the operation of the Gentlemen’s Agreement. 

8

Case 2:09-cv-00928-WKW-CSC Document 94 Filed 03/14/11 Page 8 of 11
Moreover, as to the Lloyd’s losses, AMIC has squarely failed to mitigate its damages since it

never sued Lloyd’s nor sought arbitration against Lloyd’s for payment of those losses. Similarly,

it has never sued nor pursued arbitration against Kemper or Discover Re for the alleged damages

resulting from the claimed late payments by those companies. 

5. STIPULATIONS BY AND BETWEEN THE PARTIES

(a) Alabama Municipal Insurance Company (AMIC) is a not-for-profit mutual

insurance company that was established by Alabama’s local governmental

entities – including cities, towns, utilities, and other municipal associations. 

AMIC’s principal place of business is in Montgomery, Alabama.

(b) Alliant is an insurance services company with its principal place of business

in California.

(c) Alliant was formerly known as Driver Alliant Insurance Services, Inc., and

as Robert F. Driver Associates before that.

(d) AMIC was paid for primary layer aggregate property loss claims as follows:

2001/2002: D003F0007 and $75,496.50

(paid on or about Aug. 8, 2008)

3XZ 162352 00 $75,496.50

(paid on or about Aug. 6, 2008)

2002/2003: D003R00028 $661,446

(paid on or about Jan. 15, 2009)

2003/2004: D0003R00034 $197,451

(paid on or about Jan. 15, 2009)

2004/2005: D0003R00040 $271,114

(paid on or about Feb. 15, 2009)

TOTAL PAID: $1,281,004

It is ORDERED that:

1. The jury selection and trial of this case, which is to last three days, is set for

March 14, 2011, at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom 2E of the Frank M. Johnson, Jr., United States

Courthouse, 1 Church Street, Montgomery, Alabama.

9

Case 2:09-cv-00928-WKW-CSC Document 94 Filed 03/14/11 Page 9 of 11
2. If there is more than one case set for trial, a trial docket will be mailed to counsel

for each party approximately one week prior to the start of the trial term.

3. The parties shall file any requested voir dire questions, motions in limine fully

briefed, and proposed jury instructions and proposed verdict forms with legal citations, on

or before February 28, 2011. The opposing party is DIRECTED to file a response to any

motion in limine on or before March 6, 2011.

4. The parties are not required to file trial briefs, but if they choose to do so, the

briefs shall be filed on or before February 28, 2011.

5. The parties shall jointly prepare and submit to chambers on or before February

28, 2011, three copies of a three-ringed binder of pre-marked exhibits. The binder shall

contain joint exhibits (i.e., those exhibits that are relevant, not subject to objections, and

certain to be introduced at trial); Plaintiff’s exhibits that are or may be contested; and

Defendant’s exhibits that are or may be contested. On the same date, the parties shall jointly

prepare and submit to chambers three copies of the exhibit list, which shall delineate all

objections to exhibits and responses to objections. The parties shall direct questions about

this procedure to the law clerk assigned to the case.

6. The parties shall review and comply with the Middle District of Alabama’s Order

on the E-Government Act.

7. All deadlines not otherwise affected by this order will remain as set forth in the

Uniform Scheduling Order.

10

Case 2:09-cv-00928-WKW-CSC Document 94 Filed 03/14/11 Page 10 of 11
8. The parties have indicated that there are no other disputes at this time. All

understandings, agreements, deadlines and stipulations contained in this Order shall be

binding on all parties unless modified by the court.

DONE this 14th day of March, 2011. 

 /s/ W. Keith Watkins 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11

Case 2:09-cv-00928-WKW-CSC Document 94 Filed 03/14/11 Page 11 of 11