Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-03509/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-03509-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation
Defendant
Michael Hat Farming Company
Plaintiff
Risk Management Agency
Defendant
John Van Curen
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE HEARING ON MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO 

STATE A CLAIM AND FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION AND IN THE ALTERNATIVE TO DISMISS FOR IMPROPER VENUE

9993.969/25235

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

MEYE RS LAW

G RO U P , P.C .

44 MONTGOMERY STREET, SUITE 1010

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF ORNIA 94104

MEYERS LAW GROUP, P.C.

MERLE C. MEYERS, ESQ., CA Bar #66849

D. CLARKE SUGAR, ESQ., CA Bar #251681

44 Montgomery Street, Suite 1010

San Francisco, CA 94104

Telephone: (415) 362-7500

Facsimile: (415) 362-7515

Attorneys for Plaintiff John Van Curen, Trustee

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

In re 

JOHN VAN CUREN, as Trustee of the 

Chapter 11 Estate of MICHAEL HAT, a/k/a 

MICHAEL HAT FARMING COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

v. 

FEDERAL CROP INSURANCE 

CORPORATION; and RISK 

MANAGEMENT AGENCY,

Defendants. 

Case No. CV-09-3509

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE HEARING ON 

MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM AND FOR LACK OF 

THE PARTIES HEREBY STIPULATE AND AGREE AS FOLLOWS:

JURISDICTION AND IN THE ALTERNATIVE TO DISMISS FOR IMPROPER VENUE

1. On July 30, 2009, JOHN VAN CUREN, the plaintiff herein (the “Plaintiff”) filed the 

Complaint For Breach Of Contract And For Damages Under 7 C.F.R. § 400.96 (the “Complaint”). 

2. On October 15, 2009, the FEDERAL CROP INSURANCE CORPORATION and the 

RISK MANAGEMENT AGENCY, the defendants herein (the “Defendants,” or collectively with the 

Plaintiff, the “Parties”), responded to the Complaint by filing the Motion To Dismiss For Failure To 

State A Claim And For Lack Of Jurisdiction, And In The Alternative To Dismiss For Improper Venue 

(the “Motion”), initially scheduled for hearing on January 7, 2010, and later continued by stipulation 

between the Parties to February 25, 2010. 

Case 3:09-cv-03509-VRW Document 31 Filed 05/24/10 Page 1 of 2
2

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE HEARING ON MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO 

STATE A CLAIM AND FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION AND IN THE ALTERNATIVE TO DISMISS FOR IMPROPER VENUE

9993.969/25235

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

MEYE RS LAW

G RO U P , P.C .

44 MONTGOMERY STREET, SUITE 1010

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF ORNIA 94104

3. In the interim, and upon reviewing the Motion, the Plaintiff determined that it would 

be necessary to amend the Complaint. Accordingly, on February 2, 2010, the Parties filed the 

Stipulation To (1) Allow Filing Of Amended Complaint; And (2) Establishing Timetable For 

Responsive Pleadings Relating Thereto; Order Thereon (the “Stipulation,” Docket No. 17), whereby 

the Parties agreed to a new timetable for pleading the controversy, and proposed April 22, 2010 as the 

new hearing date. 

4. Thereafter, based on the Court’s requested recalendaring, the Parties again agreed to 

continue the hearing date from April 22, 2010 until June 10, 2010 (the “Scheduled Hearing”). 

5. Based on an additional scheduling conflict for plaintiff's counsel, and at plaintiff's 

counsel's request, the Parties have agreed through their respective counsel, subject to Court approval, 

to postpone the Scheduled Hearing and reset the Motion for hearing on Thursday, July 1, 2010 at 

10:00 a.m., the next available hearing date that accommodates both parties. The Plaintiff’s 

memorandum in opposition to the Motion shall be filed and served no later than June 9, 2010, and 

any reply memorandum shall be filed and served by the Defendants no later than June 18, 2010.

6. By agreeing to this stipulation, the Defendant does not agree that a hearing is 

necessary or appropriate; in fact, the matter may be appropriate for decision on the papers.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

DATED: May 17, 2010 MEYERS LAW GROUP, P.C.

By 

Attorneys for Plaintiff John Van Curen

/s/ Merle C. Meyers

DATED: May 17, 2010 JOSEPH P. RUSSONIELLO

United States Attorney

By 

Jonathan U. Lee 

/s/ Jonathan U. Lee

Assistant United States Attorney

Attorneys for Defendants Federal Crop Insurance 

Corporation and Risk Management Agency

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED:

DATED: May _____, 2010 

 HONORABLE VAUGHN R. WALKER

__ ____________________________

 United States District Judge

24 

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Judge Vaughn R Walker

Case 3:09-cv-03509-VRW Document 31 Filed 05/24/10 Page 2 of 2