Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-00440/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-00440-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other 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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEEFEL, LEVITT & WEISS,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

ASTOR HOLDINGS, INC., ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

_________________________________/

No. C-03-0440 JCS

PRETRIAL CONFERENCE ORDER NO. TWO

On Wednesday, July 27, 2005, a Final Pretrial Conference was held in this matter. David W.

Evans and Scott Bloom appeared on behalf of Steefel, Levitt & Weiss (“Steefel”). Edward Vincent King,

Jr., appeared on behalf of Astor Holdings, Inc., Robot Wars LLC, Smile/Astor Place Communications

(collectively “Astor”) and Stephen Plotnicki (“Plotnicki”). Edward D. Haas and Russell S. Roeca

appeared on behalf of William R. Pascoe and Pascoe & Rafton (collectively “Pascoe”). Having heard the

arguments of counsel, and for the reasons stated on the record, the Court orders as follows:

1. The Astor parties agreed on the record that the only damages sought under their affirmative

claims, apart from those damages already excluded by the Court, are limited to the attorneys’ fees and

costs that remain unpaid and with respect to which Pascoe and Steefel have filed their affirmative claims. 

With respect to the affirmative contract claims of Steefel and Pascoe, the Astor parties assert the defense

that both Steefel and Pascoe failed to perform and/or breached the contracts involved by failing to perform

their requisite duties as counsel to the professional standard of care. Astor further agreed that, if they

succeed in this defense, they are entitled to relief only from those fees that were proximately caused by the

failure to perform to the requisite standard of care.

2. Pascoe has waived its claim for fees as set forth in the previous Pretrial Conference Order. 

Pascoe further clarified this fee waiver by indicating and agreeing on the record that it is waiving all fees and

Case 3:03-cv-00440-JCS Document 208 Filed 07/29/05 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

costs with respect to: (a) any and all preparation for the plan confirmation hearing in the Thorpe

bankruptcy; (b) the plan confirmation hearing itself; and (c) preparation for and litigation of the motion to

reconsider the confirmation of the plan.

3. The Court invited Astor to proffer any evidence that the alleged failure to follow the client’s

instructions at the plan confirmation hearing proximately caused any damages other than those previously

excluded by the Court on summary judgment or a motion in limine, and/or those waived by Pascoe. 

Astor’s counsel could not do so. Accordingly, in the absence of such a proffer, any and all evidence to

show any alleged breach of the duty of care by Pascoe at the confirmation hearing will not be permitted into

evidence.

4. By agreement of the parties, the following evidence regarding the Roskii III Action will be

permitted: (a) existence of the lawsuit; (b) the parties to the lawsuit; (c) the identities of counsel of record

for the parties in the action; and (d) the date of filing of the action and that it was pending during the relevant

time period in this case – 2001.

5. With respect to Exhibit Nos. 507, 508, and 513, the Court will not permit the introduction

of the entirety of these transcripts without some indication of the portions that are relevant to the case. 

Accordingly, Astor is instructed to identify those specific portions of these transcripts that it seeks to admit

into evidence by 4:00 p.m., on Friday, July 29, 2005. Steefel and Pascoe may file any objections to these

portions on or before Monday, August 1, 2005.

6. With respect to Astor’s affirmative claims of breach of contract and tort of malpractice, and

with respect to Astor’s defenses to Steefel’s and Pascoe’s affirmative contract claims for non-payment of

fees, the only breach of duty that is at issue in this matter is whether or not Pascoe and Steefel failed to

properly advise Astor with respect to the potential consequences of filing and maintaining the New York

Action against Thorpe, with respect to the potential for contempt proceedings and punitive damages.

7. The following typographical error in Pretrial Conference Order No. One is hereby

corrected: (a) Paragraph C.2.(b), the word “Pascoe” is substituted for the word “Astor.” 

8. No evidence may be admitted before the jury concerning the Court’s decision on, or the

existence of, the account-stated claims in this case.

9. Because the only affirmative relief sought by the Astor parties is relief from the fees and

Case 3:03-cv-00440-JCS Document 208 Filed 07/29/05 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

costs sought by the Steefel and Pascoe parties, the amount of the judgment in this case will be the amount

of fees and costs recovered by the Steefel and/or Pascoe parties less any amounts awarded to the Astor

parties on their affirmative claims.

10. The parties have agreed to the content of a stipulation of uncontested facts. The parties are

instructed to finalize the stipulation, sign, and file it. The Court will read the stipulation to the jury, along

with the final jury instructions in the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 29, 2005

/s/ Joseph C. Spero 

JOSEPH C. SPERO

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:03-cv-00440-JCS Document 208 Filed 07/29/05 Page 3 of 3