Free Stipulation - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

l Jay M. Mann (No. 005823)
Robert J. Berens (No. 012056)
2 Hank E. Pearson (No. 014593)
MANN, BERENS & WISNER, LLP
3 2929 North Central Avenue, Suite 1600
Phoenix, Arizona 85012
4 (602) 258-6200
Email: i11ir¤.iumL;11li;t*sJ;4>;i.sr>.rn1
S l`l?QE£$EH1l.1l‘il5lLY.;§.(}`JU
- l}Q§L1I`5§L)I1€T! l IUI) W lag;
6 Attorneys for Use-Plaintiff
7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8 DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
9 THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FOR)
10 THE BENEFIT AND USE OF EPC 3 C N CIV O2 2313 PHX ROS (LEAD
11 CORPORATION, an Arizona corporation, ) asc O' CIV 03113] PHX ROS
) CIV 04-1360 PHX ROS
12 Use-Plaintiff, )
) (Consolidated)
I3 vs. g
14 ) STIPULATED MOTION RE
TRAVELERS CASUALTY & SURETY ) MODIFICATION OF PRETRIAL
is coM1>ANY or AMERICA; etal., g ORDER
16 Defendants. j
17 )
)
18
IQ The parties hereby stipulate and agree and jointly move the Court as follows:
20 1. On or about May 3, 2005, the parties to this action stipulated and jointly
21 moved the Court that they be permitted to file “cross motions for partial summary
22
21 judgment on the issue of whether backcharges may or may not be asserted due to a
24 termination for convenience and for partial summary judgment on the validity of Plaintiff
25 EPC Corporation’s (“EPC’s") request for equitable adjustment," as well as a Motion by
26 Travelers regarding Standard Construction’s compliance with Miller Act notice
27
28 provisions? (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Motions")
C se2:02—cv—02313—ROS Document 125 ‘lFiIed 11/08/2005 Page:1 0f3

l 2. The purpose of the stay of discovery was to determine whether certain
2 deposition discovery would be necessary and to permit the Court to trim from the case
3
issues that could be decided as a matter of law so as to streamline remaining discovery
4
5 prior to trial.
6 3. The Court agreed with the proposal and permitted the filing of the Motions.
7 4. The Court also stayed discovery for six months through November 7, 2005.
S
5. The various Motions for Summary Judgment filed by the parties are now
9
10 fully briefed and pending before the Court.
li 6. No date for oral argument has been set and no decision has been rendered
I2
by the Court.
13
7. To effectuate the intent of the earlier Stipulation, the parties believe that it
14
15 is necessary to modify the Pretrial Order and have submitted the Proposed Modified
16 Pretrial Order attached hereto as Exhibit "A".
17 DATED this 025 day of November, 2005.
18
MANN, BERENS & WISNER, L.L.P.
19
20 if ii
By —,
21 Jay M. n
Robert J. Berens
22 Hank E. Pearson
23 Attomeys for Use-Plaintiff
24
25
26
28 . . .
se 2:02—cv—02313—ROS Document 125 ‘2FiIed 11/08/2005 Page 2 of 3

I GAONA LAW FIRM
2
David F. Gaona
4 Attorney for Plaintiff Standard Construction
5
6 SNELL & WILMER, L.L.P.
7
8 By
Troy J. Aramburu
9 Attorneys for Beneco Enterprises, L.L.C.
10
11 JENNINGS HAUG & CUNNINGHAM, LLP
12
13 By { 2 · 2"" J
James CSOITEOS, Esq.
14 Attomeys for Defendant Travelers
15
16 Original ofthe foregoing l ctronically tiled
17 and copy delivered this day of
November, 2005, to:
18
Honorable Roslyn O. Silver
lg United States District Court
20 Sandra Day O’Connor U.S. Courthouse, Suite 624
401 West Washington Street, SPC 59
21 Phoenix, AZ 85003-2158
22 l _ ..
23 104 _
24
25
26
27
28
C e 2:02—cv—02313—ROS Document 125 ‘iEiIed 11/08/2005 Page 3 of 3

Case 2:02-cv-02313-ROS

Document 125

Filed 11/08/2005

Page 1 of 3

Case 2:02-cv-02313-ROS

Document 125

Filed 11/08/2005

Page 2 of 3

Case 2:02-cv-02313-ROS

Document 125

Filed 11/08/2005

Page 3 of 3