Hallmark Specialty Insurance Company v. Mr Luxory Motor Inc

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. California
DecidedSeptember 17, 2021
Docket3:21-cv-01149
StatusUnknown

This text of Hallmark Specialty Insurance Company v. Mr Luxory Motor Inc (Hallmark Specialty Insurance Company v. Mr Luxory Motor Inc) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hallmark Specialty Insurance Company v. Mr Luxory Motor Inc, (S.D. Cal. 2021).

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 HALLMARK SPECIALTY Case No.: 21-cv-01149-L-JLB INSURANCE COMPANY, 12 SCHEDULING ORDER Plaintiff, 13 REGULATING DISCOVERY v. AND OTHER PRE-TRIAL 14 PROCEEDINGS MR LUXORY MOTOR INC, 15 Defendant. 16

17 AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIM. 18 19 Pursuant to Local Rule 16.1(d), a Case Management Conference was held on 20 September 15, 2021. After consulting with the counsel of record for the parties, being 21 advised of the status of the case, and for good cause shown, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 22 1. The parties must review and familiarize themselves with the Civil Local Rules 23 of this District (“Local Rules”), the Electronic Case Filing Administrative Policies and 24 Procedures (CM/ECF Manual”), the Standing Order for Civil Cases issued by the Hon. M. 25 James Lorenz (“Standing Order”), and the undersigned Magistrate Judge’s Chambers 26 Rules (“Chambers Rules”), all of which are posted on this District’s website. 27 /// 28 /// 1 Pleadings 2 2. Any motion to join other parties, to amend the pleadings, or to file additional 3 pleadings shall be filed no later than December 1, 2021. 4 Discovery 5 3. All fact discovery shall be completed by all parties no later than 6 April 15, 2022. “Completed” means that all discovery under Rules 30-36, and discovery 7 subpoenas under Rule 45,1 must be initiated a sufficient period of time in advance of the 8 cut-off date, so that it may be completed by the cut-off date, taking into account the times 9 for service, notice and response. Counsel shall promptly and in good faith meet and 10 confer with regard to all discovery disputes in compliance with Local Rule 26.1(a). 11 Counsel shall make every effort to resolve all disputes without court intervention through 12 the meet and confer process. If the parties reach an impasse on any discovery issue, counsel 13 shall file an appropriate motion within the time limit and procedures outlined in the 14 Chambers Rules. A failure to comply in this regard will result in waiver. Absent an 15 order of the court, no stipulation to alter or extend the time to comply with this 16 provision will be recognized by the court. 17 Discovery disputes must be brought to the Court’s attention in the time and manner 18 required by § V of Judge Burkhardt’s Civil Chambers Rules. All discovery disputes must 19 be raised within 30 calendar days of the service of an objection, answer, or response 20 that becomes the subject of dispute, or the passage of a discovery due date without response 21 or production, and only after counsel (and any unrepresented parties) have met and 22 conferred to resolve the dispute. See J. Burkhardt Civ. Chambers R. § V. 23 4. No later than February 18, 2022, the parties shall designate their respective 24 experts in writing. The parties must identify any person who may be used at trial to present 25 evidence pursuant to Rules 702, 703 or 705 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. This 26 requirement is not limited to retained experts. The date for exchange of rebuttal experts 27

28 1 shall be no later than March 18, 2022. The written designations shall include the name, 2 address and telephone number of each expert and a reasonable summary of the testimony 3 the expert is expected to provide. The list shall also include the normal rates the expert 4 charges for deposition and trial testimony. 5 5. No later than February 18, 2022, each party shall comply with Rule 6 26(a)(2)(A) and (B) disclosure provisions. This disclosure requirement applies to all 7 persons retained or specially employed to provide expert testimony, or whose duties as a 8 party’s employee regularly involve giving expert testimony. Except as provided in the 9 paragraph below, any party that fails to make these disclosures shall not, absent 10 substantial justification, be permitted to use the undisclosed evidence or testimony at 11 any hearing or at trial. In addition, the court may impose sanctions as permitted by 12 Rule 37(c). 13 6. No later than March 18, 2022, the parties shall supplement their disclosures 14 regarding contradictory or rebuttal evidence under Rule 26(a)(2)(D). 15 7. All expert discovery shall be completed by all parties no later than 16 April 15, 2022. The parties shall comply with the same procedures set forth in the 17 paragraph governing fact discovery. 18 8. Failure to comply with the above paragraphs or any discovery order of the 19 Court may result in Rule 37 sanctions, including preclusion of expert or other designated 20 evidence. 21 Motion Briefing 22 9. Except for motions in limine, all pretrial motions must be filed no later than 23 May 13, 2022. As provided herein and in the Standing Order, certain motions, including 24 motions for class certification, must be filed well before this date. 25 10. Counsel for the moving party must obtain a motion hearing date from the law 26 clerk of the judge who will hear the motion. The period of time between the date of 27 requesting a motion date and the hearing date typically exceeds 30 days. Failure to make 28 a timely request for a motion date may result in the motion not being heard. 1 11. Motion briefing must comply with all applicable Rules, Local Rules, Standing 2 Order, Chambers Rules and court orders. 3 Mandatory Settlement Conference 4 12. A Mandatory Settlement Conference shall be conducted on June 15, 2022 at 5 1:45 PM in the chambers of Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt, Edward J. Schwartz 6 U.S. Courthouse, 221 West Broadway, Suite 5140, San Diego, California 92101. No later 7 than June 6, 2022, counsel (and any unrepresented parties) shall lodge confidential MSC 8 statements with Judge Burkhardt’s chambers via e-mail at 9 efile_Burkhardt@casd.uscourts.gov. The parties’ MSC statements shall comply with § 10 III.C. of Judge Burkhardt’s Civil Chambers Rules. 11 Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 16.3, all party representatives and claims adjusters for 12 insured defendants with full and unlimited authority2 to negotiate and enter into a binding 13 settlement, as well as the principal attorney(s) responsible for the litigation, must be present 14 and legally and factually prepared to discuss and resolve the case at the MSC. In the case 15 of an entity, an authorized representative of the entity who is not retained outside counsel 16 must be present and must have discretionary authority to commit the entity to pay an 17 amount up to the amount of the Plaintiff’s prayer (excluding punitive damages prayers). 18 The purpose of this requirement is to have representatives present who can settle the case 19 during the course of the conference without consulting a superior. 20 21 22 23 2 “Full authority to settle” means that the individuals at the settlement conference must be authorized to fully explore settlement options and to agree at that time to any settlement 24 terms acceptable to the parties. Heileman Brewing Co., Inc. v. Joseph Oat Corp., 871 F.2d 25 648 (7th Cir. 1989). The person needs to have “unfettered discretion and authority” to change the settlement position of a party. Pitman v. Brinker Int’l., Inc., 216 F.R.D. 481, 26 485–86 (D. Ariz. 2003). The purpose of requiring a person with unlimited settlement 27 authority to attend the conference includes that the person’s view of the case may be altered during the face to face conference. Id. at 486. A limited or a sum certain of authority is 28 1 Counsel for a United States government entity may be excused from this 2 requirement so long as the government attorney who attends the MSC conference (1) has 3 primary responsibility for handling the case, and (2) may negotiate settlement offers which 4 the attorney is willing to recommend to the government official having ultimate settlement 5 authority. 6 Failure to attend the MSC or obtain proper excuse will be considered grounds 7 for sanctions.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Pitman v. Brinker International, Inc.
216 F.R.D. 481 (D. Arizona, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Hallmark Specialty Insurance Company v. Mr Luxory Motor Inc, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hallmark-specialty-insurance-company-v-mr-luxory-motor-inc-casd-2021.