Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Delta Pump Inc., a Stockton, California corporation, sued in San Joaquin County Superior Court over a commercial property insurance claim. According to the parties' joint status report, the policy ran from July 1, 2023 to July 1, 2024, and in February 2024 the plaintiff claimed for wind damage to a building on the insured premises. The insurer made payments, but the parties dispute the scope and amount of the covered loss. The complaint pleads breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and declaratory relief, and names ten Doe defendants.
The defendant removed the case to the Eastern District of California on July 16, 2026 and answered, denying liability. It says The Ohio Casualty Insurance Company was erroneously sued as Liberty Mutual Insurance and that Liberty Mutual is not the proper defendant. The order's case summary comes from the parties' joint status report and describes their positions rather than findings. All parties consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. section 636(c), and the court held the initial scheduling conference on October 13, 2026, with counsel for both sides appearing. The parties asserted diversity jurisdiction, which the court found proper, and venue is undisputed.
The Court’s Holding
The court dismissed the ten Doe defendants. It observed that Doe defendants are generally disfavored in the Ninth Circuit, citing Soo Park v. Thompson, and noted that the Rule 26(f) report anticipated no amendments other than correcting the defendant's name. The plaintiff confirmed at the conference that dismissal was appropriate. The order does not say whether the dismissal is with or without prejudice, and the case continues against the remaining defendant. The plaintiff may move to amend to add named defendants if it later learns their identities. Any further service, joinder, or pleading amendment requires leave of court and a showing of good cause.
The order does not resolve who the proper defendant is. It recites the parties' plan to confer on a stipulation correcting the caption to The Ohio Casualty Insurance Company, notes that a joint stipulation to amend needs no motion under Rule 15(a)(2), and sets December 13, 2026 as the deadline for the plaintiff to amend to substitute the defendant.
The court set the following schedule: initial disclosures by October 23, 2026; mediation efforts by February 10, 2027, which is 120 days after the conference; a joint mid-discovery and mediation status statement by February 15, 2027; non-expert discovery by June 11, 2027; expert disclosures by July 7 and rebuttal disclosures by July 21, 2027; and expert discovery by August 18, 2027. Dispositive motions must be filed by October 5, 2027 and heard by November 9, 2027; if both sides plan summary judgment motions, the plaintiff's opening motion is due September 14, 2027 under the judge's standing orders. The final pretrial conference is February 25, 2028, and a jury trial estimated at four to five days is set for April 10, 2028. The schedule becomes final unless written objections are filed within 14 days, and later modification requires good cause under Rule 16(b)(4); a stipulation alone is not good cause.
Key Takeaways
- The Doe defendants were dismissed after the plaintiff confirmed dismissal was appropriate, and the order contemplates later amendment by motion if actual parties are identified.
- The plaintiff has until December 13, 2026 to amend to substitute The Ohio Casualty Insurance Company, and the order does not decide whether that entity is the correct defendant.
- Discovery disputes require a meet and confer in person, by phone, or by video, and the court encourages informal telephonic conferences before formal motion practice.
- Experts not timely disclosed risk exclusion under Rule 37(c) unless the failure was substantially justified or harmless.
- Parties must identify in their exhibit lists any exhibit created with artificial intelligence.
Why It Matters
This is a routine case-management order, not a ruling on coverage or the merits. Nothing in it decides whether the insurer owes additional benefits, whether the wind-loss claim was properly adjusted, or who the proper defendant is.
Its practical value is for litigants before this magistrate judge. It shows the court dismissing Doe defendants early, setting detailed pretrial filing requirements including an AI-exhibit disclosure, and treating stipulations as insufficient to change the schedule. As a scheduling order it carries no precedential weight beyond this case.