Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00354/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00354-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alcal/Arcade Contracting, Inc.
Plaintiff
American Casualty Company of Reading, Pennsylvania
Defendant
Arcade Insulation
Plaintiff
Dick Corporation/Matt Construction Corporation
Defendant
Hartford Fire Insurance Company
Defendant
Mike Nelson Company, Inc.
Defendant

Document Text:

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES, for the Use of

ALCAL/ARCADE CONTRACTING, INC.,

a Nevada corporation, doing

business as ARCADE INSULATION,

Plaintiffs,

v.

MIKE NELSON COMPANY, INC., a

California corporation; DICK

CORPORATION/MATT CONSTRUCTION

CORPORATION, a Joint Venture;

AMERICAN CASUALTY COMPANY OF

READING, PENNSYLVANIA, a

Pennsylvania corporation; and

HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY,

a Connecticut corporation,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:06-cv-0354 OWW SMS

SCHEDULING CONFERENCE ORDER 

Discovery Cut-Off: 5/1/07

Non-Dispositive Motion

Filing Deadline: 5/15/07

Dispositive Motion Filing

Deadline: 5/30/07

Settlement Conference Date:

1/11/07 10:00 Ctrm. 7

Pre-Trial Conference

Date: 8/6/07 11:00 Ctrm. 3

Trial Date: 9/11/07 9:00

Ctrm. 3 (JT-5 days)

I. Date of Scheduling Conference.

August 18, 2006.

II. Appearances Of Counsel.

Fennell & Olsen by Jeffrey G. Olsen, Esq., appeared on

behalf of Plaintiffs.

Law Office of Myron F. Smith by Myron F. Smith, Esq.,

appeared on behalf of Defendants. 

Case 1:06-cv-00354-OWW -SMS Document 18 Filed 08/21/06 Page 1 of 9
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

III. Summary of Pleadings. 

1. Plaintiff Arcade entered into a subcontract dated

February 21, 2003, which was subsequently modified on May 5,

2003, with Mike Nelson Company, Inc., a California corporation

(hereinafter “Nelson”), for the installation of acoustical

insulation, acoustical wood ceilings, fire stopping and caulking

in the United States Courthouse in Fresno, California. The

contract price for the contract, including all change orders, is

$557,758.00, and Plaintiff is still owed the sum of $195,894.80

for labor and materials it supplied to the project for which it

has not been paid to date. Nelson in turn was a subcontractor to

Dick Corporation/Matt Construction Corporation, a Joint Venture

(hereinafter “DCMC”) which entered into a contract with the

Untied States of America for the construction of improvements in

the United States Courthouse in Fresno, California. American

Casualty Company of Reading, Pennsylvania (hereinafter

“American”) and Hartford Fire Insurance Company (hereinafter

“Hartford”) supplied the payment bond for the project which

enures to the benefit subcontractors such as Plaintiff.

2. Defendants contend that Plaintiff breached its contract

with Nelson in that it failed to complete its portion of the

contract, abandoned the job, and breached the covenant of good

faith and fair dealing. Defendants deny that Plaintiff is owed

anything.

IV. Orders Re Amendments To Pleadings.

1. The parties do not anticipate filing any amendments to

the pleadings at this time. 

///

Case 1:06-cv-00354-OWW -SMS Document 18 Filed 08/21/06 Page 2 of 9
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

V. Factual Summary.

A. Admitted Facts Which Are Deemed Proven Without Further

Proceedings. 

1. DCMC entered into a contract with the United

States of America for the construction of work of improvements at

the United States Courthouse in Fresno, California. American and

Hartford provided the payment bond for the project. DCMC entered

into a subcontract with Nelson, and Nelson in turn entered into a

subcontract with Plaintiff in which Plaintiff agreed to provide

acoustical insulation, acoustical wood ceiling, fire stopping and

caulking to the project in question.

B. Contested Facts.

1. Plaintiff contends and Defendants deny that

Plaintiff has completed its scope of work under the contract,

that with authorized change orders, the contract price for all

labor and material to be supplied by Plaintiff is $587,758.00 and

Plaintiff is owed the balance of $195,894.80. Defendants contend

and Plaintiff denies that Plaintiff breached its contract with

Nelson, that it failed to complete its portion of the contract,

that it abandoned the job, and that it breached the covenant of

good faith and fair dealing. The scope of work under Plaintiff’s

subcontract with Nelson and whether or not all of the change

orders proposed by Plaintiff became part of the contract with

Nelson.

VI. Legal Issues.

A. Uncontested.

1. Jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and the

Miller Act. 

Case 1:06-cv-00354-OWW -SMS Document 18 Filed 08/21/06 Page 3 of 9
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

4

2. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391.

3. The parties agree that the substantive law of the

United States applies regarding choice of law. To the extent any

issue is not covered by Federal law, either the law of the State

of California or any choice of law selected by the applicable

contract or contracts. 

B. Contested. 

1. Whether or not any contract between the parties

was breached. 

2. Whether or not that breach caused any damage to

any party.

3. The nature and extent of any damage.

4. Whether or not any change orders proposed by

Plaintiff became part of the contract.

5. The nature and extent of the scope of work under

Plaintiff’s subcontract with Nelson. 

VII. Consent to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction.

1. The parties have not consented to transfer the 

case to the Magistrate Judge for all purposes, including trial.

VIII. Corporate Identification Statement.

1. Any nongovernmental corporate party to any action in

this court shall file a statement identifying all its parent

corporations and listing any entity that owns 10% or more of the

party's equity securities. A party shall file the statement with

its initial pleading filed in this court and shall supplement the

statement within a reasonable time of any change in the

information. 

///

Case 1:06-cv-00354-OWW -SMS Document 18 Filed 08/21/06 Page 4 of 9
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

5

IX. Discovery Plan and Cut-Off Date.

1. The parties are ordered to complete all discovery on

or before May 1, 2007.

2. The parties are directed to disclose all expert

witnesses, in writing, on or before March 1, 2007. Any

supplemental expert disclosures will be made on or before April

2, 2007. The parties will comply with the provisions of Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) regarding their expert

designations. Local Rule 16-240(a) notwithstanding, the written

designation of experts shall be made pursuant to F. R. Civ. P.

Rule 26(a)(2), (A) and (B) and shall include all information

required thereunder. Failure to designate experts in compliance

with this order may result in the Court excluding the testimony

or other evidence offered through such experts that are not

disclosed pursuant to this order.

3. The provisions of F. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4) shall 

apply to all discovery relating to experts and their opinions. 

Experts may be fully prepared to be examined on all subjects and

opinions included in the designation. Failure to comply will

result in the imposition of sanctions. 

X. Pre-Trial Motion Schedule.

1. All Non-Dispositive Pre-Trial Motions, including any

discovery motions, will be filed on or before May 15, 2007, and

heard on June 22, 2007, at 9:00 a.m. before Magistrate Judge

Sandra M. Snyder in Courtroom 7. 

2. In scheduling such motions, the Magistrate

Judge may grant applications for an order shortening time

pursuant to Local Rule 142(d). However, if counsel does not

Case 1:06-cv-00354-OWW -SMS Document 18 Filed 08/21/06 Page 5 of 9
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

6

obtain an order shortening time, the notice of motion must comply

with Local Rule 251. 

3. All Dispositive Pre-Trial Motions are to be

filed no later than May 30, 2007, and will be heard on July 9,

2007, at 10:00 a.m. before the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger, United

States District Judge, in Courtroom 3, 7th Floor. In scheduling

such motions, counsel shall comply with Local Rule 230. 

XI. Pre-Trial Conference Date.

1. August 6, 2007, at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom 3, 7th

Floor, before the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger, United States

District Judge. 

2. The parties are ordered to file a Joint PreTrial Statement pursuant to Local Rule 281(a)(2). 

3. Counsel's attention is directed to Rules 281 

and 282 of the Local Rules of Practice for the Eastern District

of California, as to the obligations of counsel in preparing for

the pre-trial conference. The Court will insist upon strict

compliance with those rules.

XII. Trial Date.

1. September 11, 2007, at the hour of 9:00 a.m. in

Courtroom 3, 7th Floor, before the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger,

United States District Judge. 

2. This is a jury trial.

3. Counsels' Estimate Of Trial Time:

a. 5 days.

4. Counsels' attention is directed to Local Rules

of Practice for the Eastern District of California, Rule 285. 

///

Case 1:06-cv-00354-OWW -SMS Document 18 Filed 08/21/06 Page 6 of 9
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

7

XIII. Settlement Conference.

1. A Settlement Conference is scheduled for January 11,

2007, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 7 before the Honorable Sandra M.

Snyder, United States Magistrate Judge. 

2. Unless otherwise permitted in advance by the

Court, the attorneys who will try the case shall appear at the

Settlement Conference with the parties and the person or persons

having full authority to negotiate and settle the case on any

terms at the conference. 

3. Permission for a party [not attorney] to attend

by telephone may be granted upon request, by letter, with a copy

to the other parties, if the party [not attorney] lives and works

outside the Eastern District of California, and attendance in

person would constitute a hardship. If telephone attendance is

allowed, the party must be immediately available throughout the

conference until excused regardless of time zone differences. 

Any other special arrangements desired in cases where settlement

authority rests with a governing body, shall also be proposed in

advance by letter copied to all other parties. 

4. Confidential Settlement Conference Statement. 

At least five (5) days prior to the Settlement Conference the

parties shall submit, directly to the Magistrate Judge's

chambers, a confidential settlement conference statement. The

statement should not be filed with the Clerk of the Court nor

served on any other party. Each statement shall be clearly

marked "confidential" with the date and time of the Settlement

Conference indicated prominently thereon. Counsel are urged to

request the return of their statements if settlement is not

Case 1:06-cv-00354-OWW -SMS Document 18 Filed 08/21/06 Page 7 of 9
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

8

achieved and if such a request is not made the Court will dispose

of the statement.

5. The Confidential Settlement Conference

Statement shall include the following: 

a. A brief statement of the facts of the 

case.

b. A brief statement of the claims and 

defenses, i.e., statutory or other grounds upon which the claims

are founded; a forthright evaluation of the parties' likelihood

of prevailing on the claims and defenses; and a description of

the major issues in dispute.

c. A summary of the proceedings to date.

d. An estimate of the cost and time to be

expended for further discovery, pre-trial and trial.

e. The relief sought.

f. The parties' position on settlement,

including present demands and offers and a history of past

settlement discussions, offers and demands. 

XIV. Request For Bifurcation, Appointment Of Special Master, 

Or Other Techniques To Shorten Trial. 

1. None. 

XV. Related Matters Pending.

1. There are no related matters.

XVI. Compliance With Federal Procedure.

1. The Court requires compliance with the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice for the

Eastern District of California. To aid the court in the

efficient administration of this case, all counsel are directed

Case 1:06-cv-00354-OWW -SMS Document 18 Filed 08/21/06 Page 8 of 9
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

9

to familiarize themselves with the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice of the Eastern District

of California, and keep abreast of any amendments thereto.

XVII. Effect Of This Order.

1. The foregoing order represents the best

estimate of the court and counsel as to the agenda most suitable

to bring this case to resolution. The trial date reserved is

specifically reserved for this case. If the parties determine at

any time that the schedule outlined in this order cannot be met,

counsel are ordered to notify the court immediately of that fact

so that adjustments may be made, either by stipulation or by

subsequent scheduling conference. 

2. Stipulations extending the deadlines contained

herein will not be considered unless they are accompanied by

affidavits or declarations, and where appropriate attached

exhibits, which establish good cause for granting the relief

requested. 

3. Failure to comply with this order may result in

the imposition of sanctions. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 18, 2006 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00354-OWW -SMS Document 18 Filed 08/21/06 Page 9 of 9