Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01702/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01702-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Atlantic Mutual Insurance Company
Counter Claimant
Atlantic Risk Services, Inc.
Defendant
Crestwood Behavioral Health, Inc.
Counter Defendant
Helios Healthcare, LLC
Counter Defendant

Document Text:

1 

STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFFS’ 

COMPLAINT 

Page 1

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 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - SACRAMENTO 

CRESTWOOD BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, 

INC., a Delaware corporation, and HELIOS 

HEALTHCARE, LLC, a California limited 

liability company, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

ATLANTIC MUTUAL INSURANCE 

COMPANY, a New York corporation, 

ATLANTIC RISK SERVICES, INC., a New 

York corporation, and DOES 1-50 inclusive, 

Defendants. 

No. 2:05-CV-1702-MCE-GGH 

STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 

This Stipulation is entered into between Plaintiffs and Cross-defendants CRESTWOOD 

BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, INC. and HELIOS HEALTHCARE, LLC and Defendants and 

Cross-complainants ATLANTIC MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY and ATLANTIC RISK 

SERVICES, INC., by and through their respective counsel: 

1. Defendants ATLANTIC MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY and ATLANTIC 

RISK SERVICES, INC. presently have a Motion for Summary Judgment scheduled to be heard 

in the above-entitled court on September 25, 2006. 

/// 

/// 

Gary R. Selvin, State Bar No. 112030

Curtis R. Ogilvie, State Bar No. 111911 

SELVIN WRAITH HALMAN LLP 

500 Twelfth Street, Suite 340 

Oakland, CA 94607 

Telephone: (510) 874-1811 

Facsimile: (510) 465-8976 

Attorneys for Defendants 

ATLANTIC MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY 

and ATLANTIC RISK SERVICES, INC.

Case 2:05-cv-01702-MCE -GGH Document 28 Filed 09/19/06 Page 1 of 3
2 

STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFFS’ 

COMPLAINT 

Page 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

2. Counsel for Plaintiffs CRESTWOOD BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, INC. and 

HELIOS HEALTHCARE, LLC have requested that this motion be continued thirty (30) days to 

accommodate scheduling conflicts. 

3. Defendants and Cross-complainants have agreed to continue their Motion for 

Summary Judgment to October 23, 2006. Opposition and reply papers will be due 

commensurate with this new hearing date. 

4. The parties have agreed that all pending discovery in this matter will be continued 

for a corresponding thirty (30) day period. This continuance will include all currently pending 

discovery response deadlines and corresponding deadlines for motions to compel. No new 

discovery is to be propounded for thirty (30) days following the execution of this stipulation. 

5. The deposition of Defendant affiliated witnesses presently scheduled for October 

10, 11, and 12, 2006 will be continued to the week of November 13, 2006. 

6. All discovery, with the exception of expert discovery, shall be completed by 

November 30, 2006. In this context, “completed” shall mean all discovery shall have been 

conducted so that all depositions shall have been taken and any disputes relative to discovery 

shall have been resolved by appropriate order if necessary and, where discovery has been 

ordered, the order has been obeyed. 

7. Plaintiffs’ deadline for the hearing on its motion to compel will be November 20, 

2006, or at such time as is mutually convenient to the Court and the parties. 

8. The disclosure of expert witnesses and reports in compliance with FRCP 

26(a)(2)(B) will be November 30, 2006. 

9. All other scheduling deadlines set forth in the court’s Pretrial Scheduling Order 

shall remain in effect and unchanged. 

10. In addition to the need to change the schedule to accommodate the parties and 

their counsel, as set forth above, good cause exists to modify the summary judgment hearing, lay 

and expert discovery, as the parties are scheduled to mediate this dispute on September 20 and 

September 21, 2006 before Martin Quinn of JAMS. 

Case 2:05-cv-01702-MCE -GGH Document 28 Filed 09/19/06 Page 2 of 3
3 

STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFFS’ 

COMPLAINT 

Page 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

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED. 

DATED: September ___, 2006 HARDY ERICH BROWN & WILSON 

By ________________________________________ 

David L. Perrault 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

DATED: September , 2006 SELVIN WRAITH HALMAN LLP 

By________________________________________ 

Gary R. Selvin 

Curtis R. Ogilvie 

Attorneys for Defendants 

IT IS SO ORDERED 

Dated: September 19, 2006 

__________________________________ 

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

 

Case 2:05-cv-01702-MCE -GGH Document 28 Filed 09/19/06 Page 3 of 3