Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00122/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00122-6/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Company
Plaintiff
American Motorists Insurance Company
Plaintiff
David L. Carothers
Defendant
Terri L. Carothers
Defendant
Carothers Construction, 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

JOHN E. CASSINAT (SBN 131214)

RONALD L. CARELLO (SBN 179238)

CASSINAT LAW CORPORATION

4815 Laguna Park Drive, Suite C

Elk Grove, CA 95758

(916) 393-3030 - Office

(916) 393-4238 - Fax

Attorneys for Carothers Construction, Inc.,

David L. Carothers, and Terri L. Carothers

JAMES P. DIWIK (SBN 164016)

JOEL M. LONG (SBN 226061)

SEDGWICK, DETERT, MORAN & ARNOLD

One Market Plaza

Steuart Tower, 8 Floor th

San Francisco, CA 94105

(415) 781-7900 - Office

(415) 781-2635 - Fax

Attorneys for American Manufacturers Mutual

Insurance Company and American Motorists

Insurance Company

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SACRAMENTO DIVISION

AMERICAN MANUFACTURERS

MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY and 

AMERICAN MOTORISTS INSURANCE

COMPANY, 

Plaintiffs,

v.

CAROTHERS CONSTRUCTION, INC.,

DAVID L. CAROTHERS, and TERRI L.

CAROTHERS,

Defendants.

__________________________________/

CASE NO. 2:05-CV-0122-MCE-GGH

STIPULATION TO MODIFY

DISCOVERY CUTOFF FOR

PERCIPIENT DEPOSITIONS ONLY,

AND TO MODIFY DISPOSITIVE

MOTION DEADLINES

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:05-cv-00122-MCE-KJN Document 34 Filed 01/04/07 Page 1 of 7
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

Pursuant to Local Rule 83-143, in accordance with this Court’s prior orders, and for good

cause shown below, Plaintiffs American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Company (“American

Manufacturers”) and American Motorists Insurance Company (“American Motorists”) and

Defendants Carothers Construction, Inc., (“Carothers Construction”) David L. Carothers and

Terri L. Carothers respectfully request and stipulate to a limited extension of the December 20,

2006, cut-off to permit the parties to conduct previously scheduled party depositions.

In addition, the parties stipulate to extend the deadlines for hearing dispositive motions in

this matter by 30 days from February 12, 2007, to March 14, 2007, to accommodate the

completion of Plaintiffs’ depositions of Defendants.

In addition, the parties stipulate that any party may invoke the discovery dispute

procedure in Local Rule 37-251 in the event that any other party fails to provide discovery or

witnesses. 

The limited extension will not impact the June 7, 2007, trial date.

In support of this Stipulation, the parties state as follows:

1. Plaintiff alleges that this Federal action arises out of Defendants’ alleged failure to

reimburse Plaintiffs for loss and expenses incurred in connection with the public works

construction projects: Folsom Fire Station Project, CRC Los Rios Community College Project,

and the ARC Los Rios Community College Project. 

2. There is a case pending in the Sacramento Superior Court entitled Los Rios v.

Carothers et al., Case No. 05AS03888 (consolidated with 05AS02375, 04AS05003,

04AM00538, 04AS001428, and SCV14019. This case entails numerous subcontractor claims

for payment on two Los Rios Projects, the ARC and CRC schools. The Los Rios Action was

consolidated on September 19, 2006, to bring all of the subcontractor claims, and the claims of

the Plaintiffs together with the Interpleader action filed by Los Rios (Case No. 05AS03888). On

December 18, 2006, Los Rios sought a court order which was granted allowing them to

interplead $380,000 into the Sacramento Superior Court. American Motorist claims entitlement

to said funds. Carothers Construction claims entitlement to said funds as well as additional

contract funds from Los Rios relating to these Projects. 

Case 2:05-cv-00122-MCE-KJN Document 34 Filed 01/04/07 Page 2 of 7
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

3. On December 21, 2006, counsel for Los Rios, American (Plaintiff herein), and

Carothers (Defendant) had a conference call to finalize scheduling of a mediation in the

underlying State Court Los Rios matter. The mediation is scheduled for January 31, 2007.

4. As of the beginning of December 2006, the only discovery left to be completed in

this case, other than expert witness discovery, was (1) the mutual document exchange between

the parties, (2) the depositions of the Defendants by the Plaintiffs, and (3) the depositions of the

Plaintiffs by the Defendants.

5. The parties have completed the mutual document exchange.

6. The depositions of the Plaintiffs by the Defendants were mutually agreed to take

place at a later date and time.

7. The depositions of the Carothers’ defendants were scheduled for December 19,

and December 20, 2006. Unfortunately, on December 14, 2006, Counsel for Defendants, Ronald

L. Carello, had to cancel the December 19, and 20, 2006, depositions due to severe workload

issues that prevented counsel from being able to physically attend the depositions as noticed.

8. Based on the January 12, 2007, deadline to file dispositive Motions and the

December 20, 2006, deadline to complete party depositions, Plaintiffs are moving to compel the

depositions notwithstanding Defendants willingness to reschedule them for early January 2007.

9. Plaintiffs have filed a motion to compel in order to preserve their rights to

discovery and have agreed to withdraw the motion to compel if this stipulation and order is

granted.

10. As to the assertions set forth in Paragraphs 11-17, they are provided by counsel

for Defendants herein only, as Plaintiffs and their counsel do not have personal knowledge of the

facts set forth. Notwithstanding, Plaintiffs do not dispute the allegations set forth herein or the

necessity for the continuances.

11. The factual issues surrounding the cancellation of the Defendants’ depositions

started in early November 2006, when an associate with the Cassinat Law Corporation left his

employment. At the time there were three attorneys at the Cassinat Law Corporation, Messrs,

Cassinat, Carello, and Barrad. All of Mr. Barrad’s files were transferred to Mr. Carello,

Case 2:05-cv-00122-MCE-KJN Document 34 Filed 01/04/07 Page 3 of 7
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

Carothers’ attorney herein.

12. In reviewing the files, there were numerous motions that needed to be filed

including a Motion for Summary Judgment in Sacramento Superior Court Case No. 05AS04878,

and two Motions for Judgments on the Pleadings in Stanislaus Superior Court Case No. 350298. 

Prior to filing these motions, a complete review of over one year’s worth of litigation on each

case had to be performed by Mr. Carello (i.e., all pleading files, correspondence files, and

evidence files). Mr. Carello undertook that task and completed the reviews. At present the

Motions for Judgment on the Pleadings have been filed, and the Motion for Summary Judgment

is expected to be filed next week, and is approximately 98% complete. 

13. Through November and early December the parties in the Stanislaus County

Superior Court action, Case No. 350298 coordinated a further mediation for December 28, 2006. 

The trial is scheduled for March 6, 2007. Although the mediation was scheduled, and Mr.

Carello was required to spend extensive time becoming familiar with all of the issues and

evidence for the mediation, on December 19, 2006, the mediation was cancelled by the opposing

party based on their lack of preparedness to proceed. Trial in the Stanislaus case is scheduled for

March 6, 2007, and the parties have noticed depositions for January 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, and 11, 2007. 

14. During the review and preparation of the Motions as referenced in Paragraph 12,

on December 5, 2006, John Cassinat started a jury trial in the Sacramento Superior Court, Case

No. 02AS06390. The Court indicated that it would be dark for the week of December 18-22,

2006, and resume after the Christmas holiday. This would allow Mr. Carello to attend the

depositions in this action while Mr. Cassinat was in trial. On December 14, 2006, Mr. Carello

was informed that the Judge was pushing forward with the trial. Mr. Cassinat has been in trial

every working day since December 5, 2006. The trial is expected to continue after the Christmas

holiday and into the New Year. 

15. Next, on December 14, 2006, Mr. Carello learned that he may have to attend a

hearing in San Joaquin County in Case No. CV025615. Prior to December 14, 2006, Mr. Carello

had not worked on the case as it was assigned to Mr. Cassinat who had attended the prior

hearing. Although on December 14, 2006, it was not known if the hearing was going to proceed,

Case 2:05-cv-00122-MCE-KJN Document 34 Filed 01/04/07 Page 4 of 7
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

as the Court has a tentative ruling system, the Motion has been hotly contested and all prior

hearings had previously gone forward. In fact, on December 19, 2006, a tentative ruling was

issued requiring oral argument. Since Mr. Carello was not versed in the procedural history and

evidentiary issues of the case it required Mr. Carello to spend several hours on the evening of

December 19, 2006, to prepare for the hearing. The hearing did proceed as noticed at 9:00 a.m.,

on December 20, 2006, the same day as the deposition scheduled for Defendant Terri Carothers.

16. Mr. Carello being the most senior associate at the Cassinat Law Corporation has

been tracking, maintaining, and responding to all cases that would normally be handled by Mr.

Cassinat.

17. In another action pending in the United States Bankruptcy Court, Eastern District

of California, Case No. 06-24535, Mr. Carello represents a creditor. On December 11, 2006, the

Bankruptcy Trustee unexpectedly filed an objection to the Debtor’s case and scheduled a hearing

for January 17, 2007. In order to meet the filing deadline, a Motion to Convert / Dismiss was

required to be filed and served by December 19, 2006. That deadline was met, and at

approximately 4:00 p.m., on December 19, 2006, the Motion was electronically filed after

approximately 6 hours of work on December 19, 2006, alone (not counting the prior days of

extensive research and work).

18. On December 21, 2006, Messrs Long and Carello met and conferred regarding the

continuances sought herein. The parties agreed that the court should extend the deadline for

filing dispositive motions so that the parties can at least conclude Plaintiffs’ depositions of the

Defendants.

19. As to Defendants’ (Carothers) depositions of the Plaintiffs, Defendants elected,

and on or about December 12, 2006, Plaintiffs agreed to allow Defendants’ to take the

depositions after the December 20, 2006, deadline set by the court. Since a mediation is

scheduled in the Los Rios Matter, an underlying state court action, for January 31, 2007,

Defendants anticipate taking the Plaintiffs’ depositions after the mediation in order to concentrate

efforts on settlement rather than litigation in order to save costs. Defendants contend that the Los

Rios Matter mediation could resolve the entire Los Rios underlying action as well as the present

Case 2:05-cv-00122-MCE-KJN Document 34 Filed 01/04/07 Page 5 of 7
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

Federal Action.

20. Counsel have met and conferred in connection with the preparation of this

Stipulation and agree that the continuance requested herein is in the interest of justice, in the best

interest of the parties, and will increase the likelihood of settlement before trial.

Based on the foregoing Stipulation, the parties respectfully request that the Court permit

the parties to: (1) conduct previously noticed party depositions by no later than January 22, 2007,

(2) invoke the Court’s discovery dispute procedures under Local Rule 37-251 in the event that

any party fails to produce witnesses within the foregoing deadlines, and (3) continue the deadline

for hearing dispositive motions from February 12, 2007 to March 19, 2007, along with the

accompanied dates for service of such motions.

STIPULATED AND AGREED TO BY:

Date: December _____, 2006 CASSINAT LAW CORPORATION

____________________________________

RONALD L. CARELLO, Attorneys for

Carothers Construction, Inc., David L.

Carothers, and Terri L. Carothers

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 2:05-cv-00122-MCE-KJN Document 34 Filed 01/04/07 Page 6 of 7
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

Date: December _____, 2006 SEDGWICK, DETERT, MORAN & ARNOLD,

LLP

____________________________________

JOEL LONG / MICHAEL LUM, Attorneys

for American Manufacturers Mutual

Insurance Company, and American

Motorists Insurance Company

IT IS SO ORDERED:

Dated: January 4, 2007

___________________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-00122-MCE-KJN Document 34 Filed 01/04/07 Page 7 of 7