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 

Daniel Harshman, Esq. 

COZEN O'CONNOR 

777 South Figueroa Street 

Suite 2850 

Los Angeles, California 90017 

Telephone: 213.892.7900 

Facsimile: 213.892.7999 

S. Ellyn Farley 

COZEN O’CONNOR 

222 S. Riverside Plaza 

Suite 1500 

Chicago, Illinois 60606 

Telephone: 312.382.3197 

Facsimile: 312.382.8910 

Admitted Pro Hac Vice 

Attorneys for Plaintiff, 

Lexington Insurance Company 

Bryan A. McBurney 

CLAUSEN MILLER P.C. 

2040 Main Street 

Suite 500 

Irvine, California 92614 

Telephone: 949.260.3100 

Facsimile: 949.260.3190 

Paul Bozych (Admitted PHV) 

Todd M. Murphy (Admitted PHV) 

CLAUSEN MILLER P.C. 

10 South LaSalle Street 

Suite 1600 

Chicago, Illinois 60603 

Telephone: 312.606.7697 

Facsimile: 312.606.7777 

Attorneys for Defendant SchraderBridgeport International, Inc. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

Lexington Insurance Company, as Subrogee 

of B-G Western, Inc., 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Schrader-Bridgeport International, Inc., 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 3:09-cv-01509 

Judge: Samuel Conti 

AMENDED JOINT 

STIPULATION FOR 

ENLARGEMENT OF TIME FOR 

PLAINTIFF TO FILE 

OPPOSITION TO 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

PLAINTIFF LEXINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY, AS SUBROGEE OF B-G 

WESTERN, INC. AND DEFENDANT SCHRADER-BRIDGEPORT 

INTERNATIONAL, INC. HEREBY STIPULATE AS FOLLOWS: 

1. This is a contribution action, arising out of a previous action filed in the 

United States District, Northern District of California styled as Feliciano Reyes v. The 

Home Dept and Erwin Industrial Tool Company (erroneously sued as “BenzOmatic”), 

Case No. C-06-04863 SC (hereinafter “the underlying litigation”). 

2. In the underlying action, the Plaintiff, Feliciano Reyes, alleged that a 

BernzOmatic T-4000 torch, which is hand-held torch attached to a MAPP gas canister, 

Case 3:09-cv-01509-SC Document 48 Filed 06/03/10 Page 1 of 12
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 

ignited, causing him to sustain burn injuries. The underlying litigation was settled 

following a mediation and pursuant to a Settlement Agreement and General Release 

entered into between Mr. Reyes and the defendants in the underlying litigation. 

3. Plaintiff in this action, Lexington Insurance Company, has alleged that 

the cause of the ignition of the fire that caused Mr. Reyes’ burn injuries was a leak 

with the valve on the canister, provided by Defendant, Schrader-Bridgeport 

International, Inc., when the torch was removed from the canister. 

4. At approximately 4:14 p.m. CDT on Friday, April 30, 2010, Defendant, 

Schrader-Bridgeport International, Inc., filed its Motion for Summary Judgment (See, 

ECF No. 42). 

5. Pursuant to Local Rule 7-3(a), entitled Opposition, “[a]ny opposition to a 

motion must be served and filed not less than 21 days before the hearing date.” In 

addition, Local Rule 7-3(a) provides that, “[t]he opposition may include a proposed 

order, affidavits or declarations, as well as a brief or memorandum under Civil L.R. 7-

4” 

6. At the time Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment was 

electronically filed, a hearing date on the motion was set for May 28, 2010 (See, ECF 

No. 42). As such, pursuant to Local Rule 7-3(a), Plaintiff’s opposition and 

accompanying or supporting affidavits were to be served and filed on May 7, 2010.1

 

7. Due to the hearing date that was set for the motion and in light of the 

requirements of Local Rule 7-3, Plaintiff was provided a period of only seven (7) days 

to submit its opposition to Defendant’s dispositive motion. 

8. Pursuant to Local Rule 6-1, Plaintiff is seeking an extension of time, by 

stipulation, of seven (7) days, up to and including May 14, 2010, to file its 

memorandum in opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Defense 

counsel has agreed to this request for an enlargement of time of seven (7) days in 

 

1 The parties previously filed a joint stipulation for an enlargement of time for Plaintiff to file its opposition to 

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment on May 7, 2010. This amended stipulation provides further clarification 

and detail per the request of the Court.

Case 3:09-cv-01509-SC Document 48 Filed 06/03/10 Page 2 of 12
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 

order for Plaintiff to file and serve its opposition to the Motion for Summary 

Judgment. Defendant’s Reply in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment will 

then be due seven (7) days thereafter, on or by May 21, 2010. 

 9. Pursuant to Local Rule 6-2(a)(2), no previous time modifications have 

been granted by Court order. 

 10. Pursuant to Local Rule 6-2(a)(3), there are no known effects that the 

requested time modification would have on the schedule for the case. Specifically, the 

entry of an order enlarging the time for the filing of Plaintiff’s opposition to 

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment will not impact any further or future 

dates in this action, including the pre-trial conference, the trial, or any deadlines for 

the submission of pre-trial materials. 

11. Moreover, Plaintiff would incur substantial harm and prejudice if not 

allowed to file an opposition to the pending motion for summary judgment pursuant to 

Local and Federal Rules, insofar as Plaintiff would not be permitted to provide 

pertinent information for the Court’s consideration prior to disposition of this action. 

In addition, while Plaintiff would incur severe prejudice absent a nominal enlargement 

of time to file its opposition and accompanying affidavit to the pending motion, no 

such harm or prejudice would result from the entry of the Order sought. 

12. This stipulation is not filed to unnecessarily delay the progress and 

resolution of this litigation. 

 13. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is being submitted on the 

papers only, and no oral argument is requested. As such, the hearing previously set on 

the Motion for Summary Judgment on May 28, 2010 (See, ECF No. 42) can be 

stricken from the Court’s calendar. 

WHEREFORE Plaintiff, Lexington Insurance Company, as Subrogee of B-G 

Western, Inc., and Defendant, Schrader-Bridgeport International, Inc., respectfully 

request that this Court enter an Order, extending the date for the filing and service of 

Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment by a period of 

Case 3:09-cv-01509-SC Document 48 Filed 06/03/10 Page 3 of 12
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 

seven (7) days, up to and including May 14, 2010, and extending the date for the filing 

and service of Defendant’s Reply in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment up 

to and including May 21, 2010, and striking the hearing on Defendant’s Motion for 

Summary Judgment set for May 28, 2010, and for any other relief this Court deems 

just and appropriate. 

DATE: 5/12/2010 COZEN O’CONNOR 

By:s/S. Ellyn Farley S. Ellyn Farley (Admitted PHV) 222 S. Riverside Plaza 

Suite 1500 

Chicago, Illinois 60606 

Telephone: 312.382.3197 

Facsimile: 312.382.8910 

and Daniel Harshman 

777 South Figueroa Street 

Suite 2850 

Los Angeles, California 90017 

Telephone: 213.892.7000 

Facsimile: 213.892.7999 

Attorneys for Plaintiff, Lexington Insurance Company 

DATE: 05/12/2010 CLAUSEN MILLER P.C. 

By: s/Todd M. Murphy (with consent) Todd M. Murphy (Admitted PHV) Paul Bozych (Admitted PHV) 10 South LaSalle Street 

Suite 1600 

Chicago, Illinois 60603 

Telephone: 312.606.7697 

Facsimile: 312.606.7777 

Bryan A. McBurney 

2040 Main Street, Suite 500 

Irvine, California 92614 

Telephone: 949.260.3100 

Facsimile: 949.260.3190 

Attorneys for Defendant SchraderBridgeport International, Inc. 

Case 3:09-cv-01509-SC Document 48 Filed 06/03/10 Page 4 of 12
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 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which sent notification of such filing to the 

following attorneys and I hereby certify that the above and foregoing was delivered, 

via email on this 12th day of May, 2010, to: 

Todd M. Murphy (Admitted PHV) Paul Bozych (Admitted PHV)\ 

CLAUSEN MILLER P.C. 

10 South LaSalle Street, Suite 1600 

Chicago, Illinois 60603 

Telephone: 312.606.7697 

Facsimile: 312.606.7777 

and 

Bryan A. McBurney 

2040 Main Street 

Suite 500 

Irvine, California 92614 

Telephone: 949.260.3100 

Facsimile: 949.260.3190 

Attorneys for Defendant Schrader-Bridgeport International, Inc. 

 __________________ 

Case 3:09-cv-01509-SC Document 48 Filed 06/03/10 Page 5 of 12
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 

Daniel Harshman, Esq. 

COZEN O'CONNOR 

777 South Figueroa Street 

Suite 2850 

Los Angeles, California 90017 

Telephone: 213.892.7900 

Facsimile: 213.892.7999 

S. Ellyn Farley 

COZEN O’CONNOR 

222 S. Riverside Plaza 

Suite 1500 

Chicago, Illinois 60606 

Telephone: 312.382.3197 

Facsimile: 312.382.8910 

Admitted Pro Hac Vice 

Attorneys for Plaintiff, 

Lexington Insurance Company 

Bryan A. McBurney 

CLAUSEN MILLER P.C. 

2040 Main Street 

Suite 500 

Irvine, California 92614 

Telephone: 949.260.3100 

Facsimile: 949.260.3190 

Paul Bozych (Admitted PHV) 

Todd M. Murphy (Admitted PHV) 

CLAUSEN MILLER P.C. 

10 South LaSalle Street 

Suite 1600 

Chicago, Illinois 60603 

Telephone: 312.606.7697 

Facsimile: 312.606.7777 

Attorneys for Defendant SchraderBridgeport International, Inc. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

Lexington Insurance Company, as Subrogee 

of B-G Western, Inc., 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Schrader-Bridgeport International, Inc., 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 3:09-cv-01509 

Judge: Samuel Conti 

AMENDED JOINT 

STIPULATION FOR 

ENLARGEMENT OF TIME FOR 

PLAINTIFF TO FILE 

OPPOSITION TO 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

PLAINTIFF LEXINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY, AS SUBROGEE OF B-G 

WESTERN, INC. AND DEFENDANT SCHRADER-BRIDGEPORT 

INTERNATIONAL, INC. HEREBY STIPULATE AS FOLLOWS: 

1. This is a contribution action, arising out of a previous action filed in the 

United States District, Northern District of California styled as Feliciano Reyes v. The 

Home Dept and Erwin Industrial Tool Company (erroneously sued as “BenzOmatic”), 

Case No. C-06-04863 SC (hereinafter “the underlying litigation”). 

2. In the underlying action, the Plaintiff, Feliciano Reyes, alleged that a 

BernzOmatic T-4000 torch, which is hand-held torch attached to a MAPP gas canister, 

Case 3:09-cv-01509-SC Document 48 Filed 06/03/10 Page 6 of 12
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 

ignited, causing him to sustain burn injuries. The underlying litigation was settled 

following a mediation and pursuant to a Settlement Agreement and General Release 

entered into between Mr. Reyes and the defendants in the underlying litigation. 

3. Plaintiff in this action, Lexington Insurance Company, has alleged that 

the cause of the ignition of the fire that caused Mr. Reyes’ burn injuries was a leak 

with the valve on the canister, provided by Defendant, Schrader-Bridgeport 

International, Inc., when the torch was removed from the canister. 

4. At approximately 4:14 p.m. CDT on Friday, April 30, 2010, Defendant, 

Schrader-Bridgeport International, Inc., filed its Motion for Summary Judgment (See, 

ECF No. 42). 

5. Pursuant to Local Rule 7-3(a), entitled Opposition, “[a]ny opposition to a 

motion must be served and filed not less than 21 days before the hearing date.” In 

addition, Local Rule 7-3(a) provides that, “[t]he opposition may include a proposed 

order, affidavits or declarations, as well as a brief or memorandum under Civil L.R. 7-

4” 

6. At the time Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment was 

electronically filed, a hearing date on the motion was set for May 28, 2010 (See, ECF 

No. 42). As such, pursuant to Local Rule 7-3(a), Plaintiff’s opposition and 

accompanying or supporting affidavits were to be served and filed on May 7, 2010.1

 

7. Due to the hearing date that was set for the motion and in light of the 

requirements of Local Rule 7-3, Plaintiff was provided a period of only seven (7) days 

to submit its opposition to Defendant’s dispositive motion. 

8. Pursuant to Local Rule 6-1, Plaintiff is seeking an extension of time, by 

stipulation, of seven (7) days, up to and including May 14, 2010, to file its 

memorandum in opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Defense 

counsel has agreed to this request for an enlargement of time of seven (7) days in 

 

1 The parties previously filed a joint stipulation for an enlargement of time for Plaintiff to file its opposition to 

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment on May 7, 2010. This amended stipulation provides further clarification 

and detail per the request of the Court.

Case 3:09-cv-01509-SC Document 48 Filed 06/03/10 Page 7 of 12
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 

order for Plaintiff to file and serve its opposition to the Motion for Summary 

Judgment. Defendant’s Reply in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment will 

then be due seven (7) days thereafter, on or by May 21, 2010. 

 9. Pursuant to Local Rule 6-2(a)(2), no previous time modifications have 

been granted by Court order. 

 10. Pursuant to Local Rule 6-2(a)(3), there are no known effects that the 

requested time modification would have on the schedule for the case. Specifically, the 

entry of an order enlarging the time for the filing of Plaintiff’s opposition to 

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment will not impact any further or future 

dates in this action, including the pre-trial conference, the trial, or any deadlines for 

the submission of pre-trial materials. 

11. Moreover, Plaintiff would incur substantial harm and prejudice if not 

allowed to file an opposition to the pending motion for summary judgment pursuant to 

Local and Federal Rules, insofar as Plaintiff would not be permitted to provide 

pertinent information for the Court’s consideration prior to disposition of this action. 

In addition, while Plaintiff would incur severe prejudice absent a nominal enlargement 

of time to file its opposition and accompanying affidavit to the pending motion, no 

such harm or prejudice would result from the entry of the Order sought. 

12. This stipulation is not filed to unnecessarily delay the progress and 

resolution of this litigation. 

 13. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is being submitted on the 

papers only, and no oral argument is requested. As such, the hearing previously set on 

the Motion for Summary Judgment on May 28, 2010 (See, ECF No. 42) can be 

stricken from the Court’s calendar. 

WHEREFORE Plaintiff, Lexington Insurance Company, as Subrogee of B-G 

Western, Inc., and Defendant, Schrader-Bridgeport International, Inc., respectfully 

request that this Court enter an Order, extending the date for the filing and service of 

Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment by a period of 

Case 3:09-cv-01509-SC Document 48 Filed 06/03/10 Page 8 of 12
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 

seven (7) days, up to and including May 14, 2010, and extending the date for the filing 

and service of Defendant’s Reply in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment up 

to and including May 21, 2010, and striking the hearing on Defendant’s Motion for 

Summary Judgment set for May 28, 2010, and for any other relief this Court deems 

just and appropriate. 

DATE: 5/12/2010 COZEN O’CONNOR 

By:s/S. Ellyn Farley S. Ellyn Farley (Admitted PHV) 222 S. Riverside Plaza 

Suite 1500 

Chicago, Illinois 60606 

Telephone: 312.382.3197 

Facsimile: 312.382.8910 

and Daniel Harshman 

777 South Figueroa Street 

Suite 2850 

Los Angeles, California 90017 

Telephone: 213.892.7000 

Facsimile: 213.892.7999 

Attorneys for Plaintiff, Lexington Insurance Company 

DATE: 05/12/2010 CLAUSEN MILLER P.C. 

By: s/Todd M. Murphy (with consent) Todd M. Murphy (Admitted PHV) Paul Bozych (Admitted PHV) 10 South LaSalle Street 

Suite 1600 

Chicago, Illinois 60603 

Telephone: 312.606.7697 

Facsimile: 312.606.7777 

Bryan A. McBurney 

2040 Main Street, Suite 500 

Irvine, California 92614 

Telephone: 949.260.3100 

Facsimile: 949.260.3190 

Attorneys for Defendant SchraderBridgeport International, Inc. 

Case 3:09-cv-01509-SC Document 48 Filed 06/03/10 Page 9 of 12
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 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which sent notification of such filing to the 

following attorneys and I hereby certify that the above and foregoing was delivered, 

via email on this 12th day of May, 2010, to: 

Todd M. Murphy (Admitted PHV) Paul Bozych (Admitted PHV)\ 

CLAUSEN MILLER P.C. 

10 South LaSalle Street, Suite 1600 

Chicago, Illinois 60603 

Telephone: 312.606.7697 

Facsimile: 312.606.7777 

and 

Bryan A. McBurney 

2040 Main Street 

Suite 500 

Irvine, California 92614 

Telephone: 949.260.3100 

Facsimile: 949.260.3190 

Attorneys for Defendant Schrader-Bridgeport International, Inc. 

 __________________ 

Case 3:09-cv-01509-SC Document 48 Filed 06/03/10 Page 10 of 12
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 

Daniel Harshman, Esq. 

COZEN O'CONNOR 

777 South Figueroa Street 

Suite 2850 

Los Angeles, California 90017 

Telephone: 213.892.7900 

Facsimile: 213.892.7999 

S. Ellyn Farley 

COZEN O’CONNOR 

222 S. Riverside Plaza 

Suite 1500 

Chicago, Illinois 60606 

Telephone: 312.382.3197 

Facsimile: 312.382.8910 

Admitted Pro Hac Vice 

Attorneys for Plaintiff, 

Lexington Insurance Company 

Bryan A. McBurney 

CLAUSEN MILLER P.C. 

2040 Main Street 

Suite 500 

Irvine, California 92614 

Telephone: 949.260.3100 

Facsimile: 949.260.3190 

Paul Bozych (Admitted PHV) 

Todd M. Murphy (Admitted PHV) 

CLAUSEN MILLER P.C. 

10 South LaSalle Street 

Suite 1600 

Chicago, Illinois 60603 

Telephone: 312.606.7697 

Facsimile: 312.606.7777 

Attorneys for Defendant 

Schrader-Bridgeport International, Inc. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

Lexington Insurance Company, as Subrogee 

of B-G Western, Inc., 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Schrader-Bridgeport International, Inc., 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 3:09-cv-01509 

Judge: Samuel Conti 

ORDER

THIS CAUSE coming to be heard on the Parties' Joint Stipulation for 

Enlargement of Time for Plaintiff to File its Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for 

Summary Judgment, due notice having been given and the Court being fully advised: 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1) said Joint Stipulation is approved and the 

date for the filing and service of Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for 

Summary Judgment shall be extended by a period of seven (7) days, up to and 

including May 14, 2010; 2) the date for the filing and service of Defendant’s Reply in 

Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment up to and including May 21, 2010; and 

Case 3:09-cv-01509-SC Document 48 Filed 06/03/10 Page 11 of 12
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 

3) the hearing on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment set for May 28, 2010 

shall be stricken. 

DATED:________, 2010 ENTERED: _________________________ 

 Senior Judge Samuel Conti 

6/3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Samuel Conti

Case 3:09-cv-01509-SC Document 48 Filed 06/03/10 Page 12 of 12