Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_03-cv-05521/USCOURTS-cand-4_03-cv-05521-4/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NORTH AMERICAN CAPACITY INSURANCE

COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

 v.

TURNER CONSTRUCTION CO., et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 03-05521 SBA

ORDER

On June 6, 2004, this Court issued an Order for Pretrial Preparation ("Pretrial Order") setting the

above-captioned matter for a March 21, 2005 trial. The parties were also ordered to participate in a Pretrial

Conference on March 15, 2005 and to file certain pretrial documents on or before February 22, 2005, and

motions in limine on or before March 1, 2005. 

As ofMarch 1, 2005, the parties had notfiled any pretrialdocuments or motions in limine, as instructed

by the Court. Instead, on March 4, 2005, the parties submitted a stipulation requesting a continuance of the

March 21, 2005 trial date to July 20, 2005. In the stipulation, Plaintiff indicated that it and the named insured

had settled, and that it was in the process of settling with the additional insureds. 

On March 10, 2005, the Court dismissed the above-captioned action, but provided that any party

could move the Court within forty-five (45) days ofthe date ofthe March 10, 2005 Order to reopen the case

in the event that settlement had not been reached. 

On April 26, 2005, pursuant to a timely request submitted by Plaintiff, the Court modified the March

10, 2005 Order to provide that the case would be dismissed with prejudice unlessreopened by May 25, 2005.

On May 24, 2005, pursuant to a second request timely submitted by Plaintiff, the Court again modified

its March 10, 2005 Order to provide that the case would be dismissed with prejudice unlessreopened by June

24, 2005. 

On June 21, 2005, Plaintiff informed the Court in writing that the parties were unable to reach a final

Case 4:03-cv-05521-WDB Document 79 Filed 07/27/05 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

settlement and requested that the case be reopened. On or about that date, the Court instructed Plaintiff to

meet and confer with the defendants and to provide the Court with dates that the parties would be available

for a settlement conference.

Despite the fact that Plaintiff was given explicit instructions to meet and confer with defendants on this

issue and to immediately respond to the Court with several available dates so that the Court could properly

schedule the settlement conference, on July 13, 2005, Plaintiff informed the Court that the parties were only

able to agree on two available dates for the settlement conference, either August 8, 2005 or August 9, 2005.

Additionally, Plaintiff informed the Court that it had not received a response from defendant Turner

ConstructionCompany. Turner Construction Company also contacted the Court, however, and informed the

Court that it had, in fact, responded to Plaintiff. Turner Construction Company also requested that it be

excused from any further settlement conferences on the grounds that it has already settled with Plaintiff's

predecessor, Underwriters Insurance Company, and Plaintiff's putative insured, Conco Cement Co. Turner

Construction Company further indicated that it had discussed with Plaintiff its position that it should be

dismissed from this case, but had not yet reached an agreement with Plaintiff regarding the dismissal. 

Having considered the papers submitted to this Court, including Plaintiff's July 13, 2005 letter and

Turner Construction Company's July 14, 2005 letter, the Court finds that the parties have failed to provide a

meaningfulor timely response to the Court's requests concerning the scheduling of the settlement conference.

Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the March 10, 2005 Order dismissing this action is VACATED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the parties shall appear for a telephonic Case Management

Conference on Tuesday, August 9, 2005 at 12:30 p.m. The parties shall meet and confer prior to the

conference and shallprepare a joint Case Management Conference Statement which shall be filed no later than

August5, 2005. The Case Management Conference Statement shallspecifically identify a mutually agreeable

date, in September 2005, forthe PretrialConference and a mutually agreeable date, in September or October

2005, for the trial. The parties are reminded that the trial must be scheduled to begin on a Monday. Plaintiff

shall be responsible forfiling the statement as well as for arranging the conference call. All parties shall be on

the line and shall call (510) 637-3559 at the above indicated date and time. 

Case 4:03-cv-05521-WDB Document 79 Filed 07/27/05 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT if the parties stipulate to a dismissal of this action in its entirety

and file said stipulationpriorto the date of the Case Management Conference, the Court will vacate the Case

Management Conference and the Case Management Conference Statement need not be filed. Unless and until

a party has been dismissed fromthis case, however, it is not excused fromits obligationto meet and confer with

the other parties regarding the scheduling of the trial and Pretrial Conference.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

Dated: 7/27/05 SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG

United States District Judge

Case 4:03-cv-05521-WDB Document 79 Filed 07/27/05 Page 3 of 3