Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-05307/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-05307-6/pdf.json

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

---

STIPULATION TO EXTEND DEADLINES FOR FILING OF 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION AND REQ FOR ORDER 

-1-

LAW OFFICES 

WULFSBERG 

REESE 

COLVIG 

&

FIRSTMAN

PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 

KAISER CENTER 

300 LAKESIDE DRIVE, 24TH FLOOR 

OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94612-3524 

TELEPHONE (510) 835-9100 

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 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, 

A California Municipal Corporation, 

 Plaintiff, 

vs. 

FACTORY MUTUAL INSURANCE 

COMPANY, a Rhode Island Corporation, 

BOMBARDIER TRANSPORTATION 

(HOLDINGS) USA, INC., a Delaware 

Corporation, 

 Defendants. 

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS 

 No. C 04-5307 PJH 

STIPULATION TO EXTEND DEADLINES 

FOR FILING OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

MOTION AND REQUEST FOR ORDER

DENNIS J. HERRERA – 139669

CITY ATTORNEY 

Robert S. Maerz – 111796 

Timothy B. McCormick – 130257 

Airport General Counsel 

San Francisco City Attorney’s Office, Airport Division 

P.O. Box 8097 

International Terminal, North Shoulder Building, 5th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94128-8097 

Telephone: (650) 821-5088/ Facsimile: (650) 821-5086 

e-mail: Timothy.McCormick@sfgov.org 

WULFSBERG REESE COLVIG & FIRSTMAN 

PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 

H. James Wulfsberg – 046192 

Timothy A. Colvig - 114723 

Kris A. Cox - 136504 

Kaiser Center 

300 Lakeside Drive, 24th Floor 

Oakland, CA 94612-3524 

Telephone: (510) 835-9100 

Facsimile: (510) 451-2170 

e-mail: KAC@wulfslaw.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

City and County of San Francisco 

Case 4:04-cv-05307-PJH Document 71 Filed 07/10/06 Page 1 of 5
STIPULATION TO EXTEND DEADLINES FOR FILING OF 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION AND REQ FOR ORDER -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 

LAW OFFICES 

WULFSBERG 

REESE 

COLVIG 

&

FIRSTMAN

PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 

KAISER CENTER 

300 LAKESIDE DRIVE, 24TH FLOOR 

OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94612-3524 

TELEPHONE (510) 835-9100 

 Plaintiff City and County of San Francisco (“CCSF”), Defendant Factory Mutual Insurance 

Company (“FMIC”) and Defendant and Counterclaimant Bombardier Transportation (Holdings) 

USA, Inc. (“Bombardier”) hereby stipulate as follows and request an Order as set forth below: 

1. At the hearing on March 15, 2006, before this Court, the Honorable Phyllis Hamilton 

presiding, on Bombardier’s Motion to Sever and CCSF and FMIC’s Cross-Motions for Summary 

Judgment, this Court denied the Cross-Motions without prejudice, and denied the Motion to Sever. 

This Court further ordered: 

a.) That the parties shall have until June 14, 2006, to engage in limited discovery on 

the issues raised in CCSF’s and FMIC’s Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment 

and in the Sixth Cause of Action in the Second Amended Complaint, in which 

CCSF seeks a declaration that Bombardier’s recovery against CCSF, if any, 

cannot exceed any amount CCSF receives from FMIC under FMIC Policy No. 

UR 495; and 

b.) That the parties shall file any motion for summary judgment relating to the 

issues/claims in 1(a) above only, no later than July 19, 2006, to be heard and 

briefed in accordance with the Civil Local Rules. 

2. The parties have been diligently attempting to prepare a revised joint stipulation of 

undisputed facts as respects the issues set forth in the previous Cross-Motions for Summary 

Judgment. Counsel have been regularly meeting and conferring. CCSF and FMIC have also 

provided each other with substantial additional documentation and information relating to these 

issues and Bombardier has recently made additional information/documentation available. The 

parties are also actively seeking further information from third-parties. However, based upon a 

review of the documentation produced, the information provided, and the discussions among 

counsel as to the substance of the cross-motions for summary judgment, the parties share the 

opinion that they are unable to proceed with the filing of any summary judgment motions within 

the present schedule set by the Court as additional information and discovery from each other as 

well as from third parties is required. CCSF and Bombardier also have determined that the facts 

relevant to the issues presented by the cross-motions are more complex and involved than 

Case 4:04-cv-05307-PJH Document 71 Filed 07/10/06 Page 2 of 5
STIPULATION TO EXTEND DEADLINES FOR FILING OF 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION AND REQ FOR ORDER -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 

LAW OFFICES 

WULFSBERG 

REESE 

COLVIG 

&

FIRSTMAN

PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 

KAISER CENTER 

300 LAKESIDE DRIVE, 24TH FLOOR 

OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94612-3524 

TELEPHONE (510) 835-9100 

previously presented and that a further inquiry into the negotiation and underwriting of the 

insurance policy at issue is required. Moreover, CCSF and Bombardier have determined that 

additional stipulated facts of a complicated and technical nature must be developed and agreed 

upon before any renewed cross-motion can be presented. Developing those facts will require 

significant additional analysis, investigation, and discovery. 

3. The parties understand that the Court’s Order to open discovery was intended to provide 

Bombardier with the opportunity to evaluate its position on the issues and present that position in 

the anticipated motions, if desired, without prejudice to the other parties’ right to object to 

Bombardier’s standing to present its position on coverage issues. . 

4. The parties have agreed to depose several (as many as ten) "person most knowledgeable" 

witnesses on these complex technical issues and insurance matters. The witnesses, many of whom 

are not currently affiliated with any party, primarily reside out of the state of California. Each 

witness will require significant preparation to be able to submit to a meaningful deposition. The 

parties anticipate that these limited depositions can be concluded by September 29, 2006. 

5. The parties, therefore, stipulate to the following modification to the Court’s March 17, 

2006 Order, and respectfully request that the following Order be issued in lieu thereof: 

a.) That the parties shall have until September 29, 2006, to engage in limited 

discovery on the two issues raised in CCSF’s and FMIC’s previous CrossMotions for Summary Judgment, and on the issues raised by the Sixth Cause of 

Action in the Second Amended Complaint; and 

b.) That any motion for summary judgment shall be filed no later than October 23, 

2006, with a hearing date to be set by the court, in accordance with the Civil 

Local Rules, and that any such motions shall be limited to the issues raised in 

the previously-filed cross-motions, and/or to the issue as to whether 

Bombardier’s recovery, if any, against CCSF should be limited to the amount 

of any recovery awarded to CCSF under the FMIC policy as set forth in the 

Sixth Cause of Action in the Second Amended Complaint. 

Case 4:04-cv-05307-PJH Document 71 Filed 07/10/06 Page 3 of 5
STIPULATION TO EXTEND DEADLINES FOR FILING OF 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION AND REQ FOR ORDER -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 

LAW OFFICES 

WULFSBERG 

REESE 

COLVIG 

&

FIRSTMAN

PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 

KAISER CENTER 

300 LAKESIDE DRIVE, 24TH FLOOR 

OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94612-3524 

TELEPHONE (510) 835-9100 

6. Kris A. Cox, counsel for Plaintiff, hereby attests that he has on file all holograph signatures 

for any signatures indicated by a “conformed” signature (/s/) within this e-filed document. 

SO STIPULATED: 

Dated: July 5, 2006 WULFSBERG, REESE COLVIG & FIRSTMAN 

 PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 

By: /s/ Kris A. Cox 

Kris A. Cox 

Attorneys for Plaintiff, City and County of 

San Francisco 

Dated: July 5, 2006 CARLSON, CALLERDINE & 

 PETERSON, LLP 

By: /s/ Joyce Wang 

Joyce Wang 

Attorneys for Defendant Factory Mutual 

Insurance Company 

Dated: July 5, 2006 SONNENSCHIEN NATH AND 

ROSENTHAL LLP 

 

By: 

By: /s/ Gayle M. Athanacio 

Gayle M. Athanacio 

Attorneys for Defendant Bombardier 

Transportation (Holdings) USA, Inc. 

Case 4:04-cv-05307-PJH Document 71 Filed 07/10/06 Page 4 of 5
STIPULATION TO EXTEND DEADLINES FOR FILING OF 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION AND REQ FOR ORDER -5- 

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 

LAW OFFICES 

WULFSBERG 

REESE 

COLVIG 

&

FIRSTMAN

PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 

KAISER CENTER 

300 LAKESIDE DRIVE, 24TH FLOOR 

OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94612-3524 

TELEPHONE (510) 835-9100 

 It is hereby ordered that the Court’s Order of March 17, 2006, be modified so that: 

1. The parties shall have until September 29, 2006, to engage in limited discovery on the 

issues raised previously in CCSF’s and FMIC’s Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment and 

on the issues raised by the Sixth Cause of Action in the Second Amended Complaint; and 

2. Any motion for summary judgment shall be filed no later than October 23, 2006, and shall 

be noticed for hearing on _______, 2006, in accordance with the Civil Local Rules, and 

that the motion shall be limited to the issues raised in the previously-filed cross-motions 

and/or to the issue of the extent to which Bombardier’s recovery, if any, against CCSF 

should be limited to the amount of any recovery awarded to CCSF under the FMIC policy 

as set forth in the Sixth Cause of Action in the Second Amended Complaint. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July ___, 2006 

______________________________ 

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON 

United States District Judge

November 29, 2006 10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton

25

Case 4:04-cv-05307-PJH Document 71 Filed 07/10/06 Page 5 of 5