Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-01671/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-01671-3/pdf.json

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

STIPULATION AND (PROPOSED) ORDER RE: CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

 -1-

Bret A. Stone SBN 190161 BStone@PaladinLaw.com

John R. Till SBN 178763 JTill@PaladinLaw.com

Brian R. Paget SBN 168694 BPaget@PaladinLaw.com

PALADIN LAW GROUP®LLP

1176 Boulevard Way

Walnut Creek, CA 94595

Telephone: (925) 947-5700

Facsimile: (925) 935-8488

Counsel for Plaintiffs

Richard E. Haskins, Arthur Haskins, and

Estate of Arthur “Buzz” Haskins, Deceased

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO/OAKLAND DIVISION

RICHARD E. HASKINS, as an individual 

and as trustee of the San Bruno Channel 

Remediation Trust; ARTHUR L. HASKINS, 

as an individual; and ESTATE OF ARTHUR 

“BUZZ” HASKINS, JR., a deceased 

individual, by and through his successors in 

interest, Richard E. Haskins and Arthur L. 

Haskins,

Plaintiffs,

v.

EMPLOYERS INSURANCE OF WAUSAU, 

a Wisconsin corporation; and NATIONWIDE 

INDEMNITY COMPANY, an Ohio 

corporation; et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 3:14-cv-01671-JST

STIPULATION AND (PROPOSED) ORDER 

GRANTING LEAVE TO PLAINTIFFS AND 

DEFENDANTS TO FILE MULTIPLE 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIM.

The parties have met and conferred following this Court’s Order Granting Motion for 

Summary Judgment (ECF No. 58) regarding the duty to defend. The Court will recall that, in its 

Order, it held only that “Wausau owed a duty to defend [Plaintiffs] against Cherokee’s 

counterclaims in the underlying action.” ECF No. 58 at 6:10-11. Plaintiffs’ motion did not 

present, and the Court did not decide, whether Wausau breached its duty to defend or whether 

Case 3:14-cv-01671-JST Document 60 Filed 03/11/15 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

STIPULATION AND (PROPOSED) ORDER RE: CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

 -2- Case No. 3:14-cv-1671-JST 

“Plaintiffs’ actions in rejecting a settlement that Wausau reached with Cherokee violated the 

policy’s cooperation clause, resulting in Plaintiffs’ assumption of responsibility for their own 

defense. . . .” Id. at fn. 2, 3:26-28; see also id., at 6:11-14 (“The Court again notes that Plaintiffs 

have not requested summary judgment on any other issue, including the questions of whether 

Wausau breached that duty or whether Plaintiffs took action that resulted in the forfeiture of that 

duty.”). The parties agree that the Court can and should decide those two issues—whether Defendants breached the duty to defend and whether Plaintiffs took actions that resulted in the forfeitture of that duty—now as a matter of law by way of cross motions for partial summary judgment.

The parties believe that those two issues are threshold questions upon which the other 

remaining issues in this action depend, including, for instance, whether and, if so, to what extent, 

Defendants are liable to Plaintiffs for breach of the duty to defend, and whether Defendants might

be liable on the stipulated judgment from the underlying action. Accordingly, rulings from the 

Court on these two issues may focus and streamline the parties’ further discovery and motion 

practice in this action, and may also jump start and facilitate their settlement discussions—at least 

on some aspects of this action, if not the entire action. 

The parties also believe that they will likely be ready to present these two issues to the 

Court in their moving papers, and to prepare their oppositions to each other’s motions, with little, 

if any, additional discovery, based largely on stipulated facts. On this point, the parties have 

committed themselves to work together in good faith to try to stipulate to as many of the relevant 

facts and to the authenticity and admissibility of as many of the relevant documents as possible. 

That said, as the parties prepare their moving papers, or once they see each other’s moving 

papers, they may decide that they need more time to investigate, gather evidence, conduct 

discovery, etc. Accordingly, the parties hereby reserve their right under Rule 56 to ask the Court 

for an extension of time for the parties to brief, or for the Court to hear or decide, their motions in 

order to allow the parties additional time to investigate, gather evidence, conduct discovery, etc., 

and to present additional evidence to the Court in connection with such motions.

If the parties do file cross motions for partial summary judgment as contemplated herein, 

they do not wish to be prevented from filing additional summary judgment or partial summary 

Case 3:14-cv-01671-JST Document 60 Filed 03/11/15 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

STIPULATION AND (PROPOSED) ORDER RE: CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

 -3- Case No. 3:14-cv-1671-JST 

judgment motions later, if appropriate, and after additional discovery as may be necessary. 

Accordingly, Plaintiffs hereby request leave of Court to file more than two (since they have 

already filed one) motions for summary judgment or partial summary judgment, and Defendants 

hereby request leave of Court to file more than more motion for summary judgment or partial 

summary judgment. See Standing Order For All Civil Cases Before District Judge Jon S. Tigar, 

at ¶ D (Each party is limited to one summary judgment motion and “[a]ny party wishing to 

exceed this limit must request leave of court and must show good cause.”).

In sum, the parties hereby request leave of Court to file cross-motions for partial summary 

judgment on (1) whether Defendants breached their duty to defend and (2) whether Plaintiffs took 

actions that resulted in the forfeiture of that duty. The parties propose the following briefing 

schedule: moving papers due April 24, 2015; opposition papers due May 22, 2015; and reply

papers due June 5, 2015. The parties agree to meet and confer on a date and time for both motions 

to be heard together.

THE PARTIES SO STIPULATE.

DATED: March 10, 2015 PALADIN LAW GROUP®LLP

By: _/s/_________________________

BRIAN R. PAGET

Counsel for Plaintiffs

Richard E. Haskins,

Arthur L. Haskins, and

The Estate of Arthur “Buzz”

Haskins, Jr., Deceased

DATED: March 9, 2015 BARBER LAW GROUP

By: _/s/_________________________

BRYAN BARBER

Counsel for Defendants

Employers Insurance of Wausau and

Nationwide Indemnity Company

DATED: March 9, 2015 DENTONS US LLP

By: _/s/_________________________

SONIA MARTIN

Counsel for Defendants

Employers Insurance of Wausau and

Nationwide Indemnity Company

/ / /

Case 3:14-cv-01671-JST Document 60 Filed 03/11/15 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

STIPULATION AND (PROPOSED) ORDER RE: CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

 -4- Case No. 3:14-cv-1671-JST 

FILER’S ATTESTATION:

Pursuant to Local Rule 5-1(i)(3) regarding signatures, I attest under penalty of perjury that 

the concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from its signatories.

DATED: March 10, 2015 By: /s/

__________________________

BRIAN R. PAGET

ORDER

Having considered the parties’ request, and good cause appearing, the Court hereby 

GRANTS Plaintiffs’ request to file more than two, and Defendants’ request to file more than one, 

motion for summary judgment or partial summary judgment in this action.

Plaintiffs and Defendants may file cross motions for summary judgment or partial 

summary judgment by April 24, 2015. The parties’ opposition papers are due by May 22, 2015. 

The parties’ reply papers, if any, are due by June 5, 2015. The parties shall meet and confer to 

decide on a date and time for a hearing when both motions shall be heard together. These dates 

are without prejudice to the parties’ rights under Rule 56 to ask the Court for an extension of time 

for the parties to brief, or for the Court to hear or decide, the motions in order to allow the parties 

additional time to investigate, gather evidence, conduct discovery, etc., and to present additional 

evidence to the Court in connection with such motions.

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: March 11, 2015 ____________________________________

 Jon S. Tigar

 U.S. District Judge

(Case No. 3:14-cv-1671-JST)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

 Judge Jon S. Tigar 

Case 3:14-cv-01671-JST Document 60 Filed 03/11/15 Page 4 of 4