Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00602/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00602-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 130
Nature of Suit: Miller Act
Cause of Action: 40:270 Miller Act

---

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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA for the

Use and Benefit of SHAMROCK

PLUMBING, LLC, SHAMROCK

PLUMBING, LLC, a Utah limited

liability company,

Plaintiff,

v.

ST. PAUL FIRE AND MARINE

INSURANCE COMPANY, a Minnesota

corporation; LIBERTY MUTUAL

INSURANCE COMPANY, a

Massachusetts corporation,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:08-cv-0602 OWW DLB

SCHEDULING CONFERENCE ORDER 

Discovery Cut-Off: 6/24/09

Non-Dispositive Motion

Filing Deadline: 7/10/09

Dispositive Motion Filing

Deadline: 7/24/09

Settlement Conference Date:

7/9/09 10:00 Ctrm. 9

Pre-Trial Conference

Date: 10/5/09 11:00 Ctrm. 3

Trial Date: 11/17/09 9:00

Ctrm. 3 (JT-7 days)

I. Date of Scheduling Conference.

August 6, 2008.

II. Appearances Of Counsel.

Hunt Ortman Palffy Nieves Lubka Darling & Mah, Inc., by

Joseph Huprich, Esq., appeared on behalf of Plaintiffs. 

McNeil, Silvera, Rice & Riley by Mark J. Rice, Esq.,

appeared on behalf of Defendants Miller/Watts Construction and

St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co. 

Case 1:08-cv-00602-OWW -DLB Document 13 Filed 08/07/08 Page 1 of 11
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

Wolkin-Curran, LLP by Kristin Kerr, Esq., appeared on behalf

of Defendant Liberty Mutual Insurance Company.

III. Summary of Pleadings. 

1. Plaintiff Shamrock, entered into a subcontract

agreement (“Subcontract”) with UPA California for the performance

of plumbing work on the Curry Village Employee Housing Project

located in Yosemite, California (“Project”). Shamrock claims a

sum of $335,431 remains due and owing on the subcontract.

IV. Orders Re Amendments To Pleadings.

1. The parties do not currently anticipate amending the

pleadings, but reserve the right to do so. 

V. Factual Summary.

A. Admitted Facts Which Are Deemed Proven Without Further

Proceedings. 

1. Miller Watts Constructors, Inc. (“Miller/Watts”),

as a general contractor, entered into an agreement with the

United States of America, by and through the National Parks

Service, Contract No. 1443C8000050912 for the Project. 

2. Miller/Watts entered into a subcontract agreement

with UPA California.

3. UPA California entered into second-tier

subcontract agreement with Shamrock for the performance of

plumbing work on the project.

4. The Use Plaintiff, Shamrock Plumbing, LLC, is a

Utah limited liability company. 

5. Defendant St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance

Company is a Minnesota corporation licensed to do and doing

business in California. 

Case 1:08-cv-00602-OWW -DLB Document 13 Filed 08/07/08 Page 2 of 11
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

B. Contested Facts.

1. The Project encountered issues with various

construction delays. The source of the delays are at issue, as

well as the damages related to the delays.

2. Miller/Watts contends that all payments due to UPA

California were made. This issue is contested. Various UPA

California subcontractors also claim that they were not paid in

full. This issue is also contested. Payment issues include, but

are not limited to, validity of requested change orders, back

charges and offsetting claims.

3. There is a pending AAA arbitration involving

Miller/Watts, UPA California, St. Paul, Liberty and several

subcontractors scheduled for February 2009. UPA California has

filed for bankruptcy. Therefore, the arbitration as to claims

against UPA California is stayed. The parties are meeting and

conferring as to whether issues related to Shamrock’s present

claim may be resolved at the pending arbitration. Shamrock is

currently not a party to the arbitration. There may be an issue

as to whether UPA must join Shamrock into the arbitration, or if

Shamrock could be joined by another party. The parties are

meeting and conferring on this issue as well, as it relates to

arbitration joinder, standing and bankruptcy stay scope.

4. Shamrock’s compliance with the Miller Act is

contested.

5. Shamrock’s compliance with the bonds under which

it is seeking recovery is contested.

6. The date upon which Shamrock completed its work on

the Project is contested.

Case 1:08-cv-00602-OWW -DLB Document 13 Filed 08/07/08 Page 3 of 11
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

VI. Legal Issues.

A. Uncontested.

1. Jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 40

U.S.C. §§ 3131-3133. 

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

3. In a Miller Act case, Federal law governs the

Miller Act bonds and the owner’s plan specifications and

contracts. As to non-Miller Act bonds, the law of the State of

California provides the rule of decision. 

B. Contested. 

1. Shamrock’s compliance with the legal requirements

of the Miller Act is contested. 

2. Shamrock’s compliance with the legal requirements

under the bonds is contested.

3. Whether Shamrock’s complaint was timely filed is

contested. 

VII. Consent to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction.

1. The parties have not consented to transfer the 

case to the Magistrate Judge for all purposes, including trial.

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. 

///

Case 1:08-cv-00602-OWW -DLB Document 13 Filed 08/07/08 Page 4 of 11
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

IX. Discovery Plan and Cut-Off Date.

1. The parties shall make their Rule 26 disclosures on or

before September 5, 2008. 

2. Scope of discovery: Pursuant to F.R. Civ. Pro. Rule

26(b), and except as the Court may order after a showing of good

cause, the “[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any matter,

not privileged, that is relevant to the claims or defense of any

other party.”

3. Discovery Limitations: Unless otherwise stipulated

between the parties or ordered by the court pursuant to F.R. Civ.

Pro. Rule 26(b)(2), the parties agree to limit discovery as

follows:

a. Depositions:

(1) Each side may take no more than ten (10)

depositions.

(2) A deposition shall be limited to one (1) day

of seven (7) hours. F.R. Civ. Pro. Rule 30(d).

b. Interrogatories:

(1) “[A]ny party may serve upon any other party

written interrogatories, not exceeding 25 in number including all

discrete subparts.” F.R. Civ. Pro. Rule 33(a).

4. Supplemental Discovery: Pursuant to F.R. Civ. Pro.

Rule 26(e), the parties agree to supplement their disclosures and

amend their responses to discovery requests in a timely manner.

5. The parties are ordered to complete all non-expert

discovery on or before April 24, 2009.

6. The parties are directed to disclose all expert

witnesses, in writing, on or before April 6, 2009. Any

Case 1:08-cv-00602-OWW -DLB Document 13 Filed 08/07/08 Page 5 of 11
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

supplemental or rebuttal expert disclosures will be made on or

before May 6, 2009. The parties will comply with the provisions

of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) 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 or other evidence offered through such experts that are

not disclosed pursuant to this order.

7. The parties are ordered to complete all discovery on or

before June 24, 2009.

8. 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 July 10, 2009, and

heard on August 14, 2009, at 9:00 a.m. before Magistrate Judge

Dennis L. Beck in Courtroom 9. 

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

Case 1:08-cv-00602-OWW -DLB Document 13 Filed 08/07/08 Page 6 of 11
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

filed no later than July 24, 2009, and will be heard on August

31, 2009, at 10:00 a.m. before the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger,

United States District Judge, in Courtroom 3, 7th Floor. In

scheduling such motions, counsel shall comply with Local Rule

230. 

XI. Pre-Trial Conference Date.

1. October 5, 2009, at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom 3, 7th

Floor, before the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger, United States

District Judge. 

2. The parties are ordered to file a Joint PreTrial 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. Motions - Hard Copy.

1. The parties shall submit one (1) courtesy paper copy to

the Court of any motions filed that exceed ten pages and any

motions that have exhibits attached. Exhibits shall be marked

with protruding numbered or lettered tabs so that the Court can

easily identify such exhibits. 

XIII. Trial Date.

1. November 17, 2009, at the hour of 9:00 a.m. in

Courtroom 3, 7th Floor, before the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger,

United States District Judge. 

2. This is a jury trial.

3. Counsels' Estimate Of Trial Time:

Case 1:08-cv-00602-OWW -DLB Document 13 Filed 08/07/08 Page 7 of 11
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

a. 5-7 days.

4. Counsels' attention is directed to Local Rules

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

XIV. Settlement Conference.

1. A Settlement Conference is scheduled for July 9, 2009,

at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 9 before the Honorable Dennis L. Beck,

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

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

Case 1:08-cv-00602-OWW -DLB Document 13 Filed 08/07/08 Page 8 of 11
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

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

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. 

XV. Request For Bifurcation, Appointment Of Special Master, 

Or Other Techniques To Shorten Trial. 

1. None presently requested. However, it is expected that

critical issues will be determined in the upcoming arbitration

involving the Project, in February 2009. Among these indemnity

claims by Miller Watts Construction, Inc. against bankrupt UPA’s

surety, Liberty Mutual, as to who is obligated to defend and

Case 1:08-cv-00602-OWW -DLB Document 13 Filed 08/07/08 Page 9 of 11
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

indemnify as to the Shamrock claim and others by subcontractors

of UPA claiming to be unpaid. The arbitration also will address

broadly many delay issues and disputes over responsibility as

between UPA, its subs, Watts and NPS as to cause of delay and

cost of delay. As such, the present trial should take place at a

point in time after the various Project issues are resolved

through arbitration. 

XVI. Related Matters Pending.

1. U.S. District Court Eastern District of California:

Viking Automatic Sprinkler Company v. UPA California, et al.,

Case No. 2:08-cv-00363 LKK EFB; P2 Construction Management v.

Miller Watts Constructors, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-01850

AWI SMS; MC Painting v. UPA California, et al., Case No. 1:08-cv0467 LJO GSA. California Superior Court, Mono County; Metco

Engineering v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Case No. 16180

(stayed pending arbitration); Haro v. St. Paul & MarineI, (stayed

pending arbitration). American Arbitration Association: Watts

Constructors v. UPA California, et al., Case No. 74-110-Y-00130-

07. United States Bankruptcy Court District of Nevada: In re:

UPA Group, Inc.; UPA California, et al., Case No. 08-50488-GWZ. 

2. Potential for Consolidation: Miller/Watts and its

surety St. Paul Fire and Marine have asked the other parties to

the related cases to stipulate to consolidation of these cases,

as well as a discovery stay other than document exchange pending

completion of the AAA arbitration, for judicial economy in case

management of these trailing collection cases pending the AAA

outcome, and for party cost efficiency since the outcome of the

arbitration may obviate the need for extensive discovery. 

Case 1:08-cv-00602-OWW -DLB Document 13 Filed 08/07/08 Page 10 of 11
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

11

XVII. 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.

XVIII. 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. 

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. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 6, 2008 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-00602-OWW -DLB Document 13 Filed 08/07/08 Page 11 of 11