Free Joint Case Management Statement - District Court of California - California

Case 3:08-cv-02824-PJH

Document 14

Filed 09/04/2008

Page 1 of 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP VERNON H. GRANNEMAN (SBN 083532) [email protected] DIANNE L. SWEENEY (SBN 187198) [email protected] 2475 Hanover Street Palo Alto, CA 94304-1114 Telephone: (650) 233-4500 Facsimile: (650) 233-4545 Attorneys for Plaintiff PRODIANCE CORPORATION JEFFER, MANGELS, BUTLER & MARMARO LLP ROBERT W. MANGELS (SBN 48291) [email protected] MATTHEW S. KENEFICK (SBN 227298) [email protected] Two Embarcadero Center, Fifth Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3824 Telephone: (415) 398-8080 Facsimile: (415) 398-5584 Attorney for Defendant TOWERS, PERRIN, FORSTER & CROSBY, INC.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

PRODIANCE CORPORATION, Plaintiff, vs. TOWERS, PERRIN, FORSTER & CROSBY, INC., Defendant.

Case No. CV 08 02824 PJH JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT: FRCP RULES 16(b), 26(f) AND LOCAL RULE 16-9 Date: September 11, 2008 Time: 2:30 p.m. Courtroom: 3, 17th Floor Complaint filed: May 6, 2008 Trial Date: None set

22 23 24 25 26 27 28
701238643v1

This Joint Case Management Conference Statement is submitted pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rules 16(b), 26(f), Local Rule 16-9 and the Court's standing order effective March 1, 2007 regarding the contents of joint case management conference

-1-

JOINT CASE MGMT. STMT.; FRCP RULES 16(b), 26(f) & LOCAL RULE 16-9 Case No. CV 08 02824 PJH

Case 3:08-cv-02824-PJH

Document 14

Filed 09/04/2008

Page 2 of 5

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

statements. The parties, through counsel Vernon H. Granneman of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, attorneys for Prodiance Corporation (hereinafter "Prodiance"), and Matthew Kenefick of Jeffer, Mangels, Butler & Marmaro LLP, attorneys for Towers, Perrin, Forster & Crosby, Inc. (hereinafter "Towers") met and conferred on August 12, 2008 respecting the content of this statement. 1. Jurisdiction And Service The parties agree that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims as a result of diversity citizenship of the parties. Service is complete and all parties have appeared. 2. Facts This action was originally commenced in the Superior Court of the State of California, Contra Costa County, by the filing of a complaint by Prodiance on May 6, 2008. The complaint alleges causes of action for breach of contract and common counts (under the theories of account stated, work, labor, services and materials, and goods sold and delivered) and seeks damages of $205,000 against Defendant Towers. Towers filed its notice of removal on June 10, 2008. Prodiance contends that Towers entered into a contract to purchase software and services from Prodiance for a contract price of $205,000. Prodiance contends the contract was entered into on or about December 14, 2007 and Prodiance subsequently invoiced Towers for the majority of amounts due under the contract. Prodiance contends that Towers breached the contract in or about mid-March 2008 by refusing to complete the purchase of software and services pursuant to the parties' agreement and by contending that Towers had never purchased anything from Prodiance. Towers denies any liability to Prodiance. Towers contends that no contract with Prodiance was ever formed because the alleged contract was nothing more than a term sheet for products and services to be ordered at a later date and that no such order was ever placed. In the alternative, Towers contends that even if a contract was formed, then it was terminated in mid-March 2008 by Towers and Towers would therefore be liable, if at all,
701238643v1

-2-

JOINT CASE MGMT. STMT.; FRCP RULES 16(b), 26(f) & LOCAL RULE 16-9 Case No. CV 08 02824 PJH

Case 3:08-cv-02824-PJH

Document 14

Filed 09/04/2008

Page 3 of 5

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

for no more than a pro-rated portion of the contract amount. Towers also denies liability for breach of contract and common counts on the basis that it received nothing of value from Prodiance. 3. Legal Issues The legal issues in this matter include: (1) whether a contract was formed between the parties; (2) if a contract was formed, then whether Towers terminated the contract; and (3) whether any benefit was conferred on Towers by Prodiance under the contract or otherwise. 4. Motions There are no prior or pending motions. The parties anticipate that they may file motions for partial or total summary judgment. 5. Amendment Of Pleadings No amendments to pleadings are anticipated at this time; however, the parties suggest December 19, 2008 as the deadline for amendment of pleadings. 6. Evidence Preservation Both parties have taken reasonable steps to preserve evidence relevant to the issues reasonably evident in this action. 7. Disclosures The parties have engaged in an informal exchange of documents that focus primarily on the contract claims and defenses. The parties expect to complete initial disclosures under FRCP Rule 26 on or before September 4, 2008. 8. Discovery The parties have already engaged in an information exchange of documents. No other discovery has been conducted. The parties propose the following discovery plan: February 16, 2009 March 31, 2009 April 30, 2009 May 29, 2009
701238643v1

Percipient discovery to be completed Exchange of expert disclosures and reports Exchange of expert rebuttal disclosures and reports Close of discovery -3JOINT CASE MGMT. STMT.; FRCP RULES 16(b), 26(f) & LOCAL RULE 16-9 Case No. CV 08 02824 PJH

Case 3:08-cv-02824-PJH

Document 14

Filed 09/04/2008

Page 4 of 5

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 15. 11. 10.

July 15, 2009

Last day to hear pretrial (including dispositive) motions

The parties agree that each side will have the right to take 5 depositions. Additional depositions may be taken with leave of Court for good cause shown. The duration of depositions shall be in accordance with FRCP Rule 30. Standard Rules of Federal Procedure shall otherwise apply for interrogatories, requests for admission and requests to produce documents or other tangible things. 9. Class Actions Not applicable. Related Cases None. Relief Plaintiff seeks recovery of the contract amount of $205,000 as described in the complaint, together with interest, attorneys fees and litigation costs. To the extent that Plaintiff's lost profits become an issue in the case, Plaintiff expects that would be the subject of expert testimony and has not engaged an expert for that purpose of calculating lost profit damages at this point. Defendant seeks recovery of its attorneys' fees and litigation costs. 12. Settlement And ADR The parties, through counsel, have had preliminary discussions respecting settlement and have filed an ADR stipulation which has been approved by the Court. 13. Consent To Magistrate Judge For All Purposes The parties do not consent to assignment of this case to a Magistrate Judge for all purposes. 14. Other References None. Narrowing Of Issues Counsel have had discussions about the possibility of narrowing issues. Counsel have no specific suggestions for the narrowing of issues at this time.
701238643v1

-4-

JOINT CASE MGMT. STMT.; FRCP RULES 16(b), 26(f) & LOCAL RULE 16-9 Case No. CV 08 02824 PJH

Case 3:08-cv-02824-PJH

Document 14

Filed 09/04/2008

Page 5 of 5

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

16.

Expedited Schedule The parties do not have an agreement on an expedited schedule. Given the amount

in controversy, Prodiance is willing to abide by any reasonable procedures to maximize the efficiency of litigating this matter. 17. Scheduling Proposed dates for designation of experts and discovery cut-off are set forth above. The parties suggest that the pretrial conference be scheduled for mid-August 2009 with trial to follow in mid-September 2009. 18. Trial Both sides have requested a jury and expect the trial to take 3-5 days. 19. Disclosure Of Non-Party Interested Entities Or Persons Each party has filed a Certificate of Interested Entities or Persons required by Civil Local Rule 3-16. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 3-16, the parties certified that other than the named parties there is no such interest to report. 20. Other Matters None. Dated: September 4, 2008. PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP By /s/ Vernon H. Granneman Vernon H. Granneman Attorneys for Plaintiff PRODIANCE CORPORATION Dated: September 4, 2008. JEFFER, MANGELS, BUTLER & MARMARO LLP By /s/ Matthew S. Kenefick Matthew S. Kenefick Attorneys for Defendant TOWERS, PERRIN, FORSTER & CROSBY, INC. I attest that I have concurrence from Matthew S. Kenefick to efile this document. /s/ Vernon H. Granneman

701238643v1

-5-

JOINT CASE MGMT. STMT.; FRCP RULES 16(b), 26(f) & LOCAL RULE 16-9 Case No. CV 08 02824 PJH