Old Republic National Title Insurance Company v. James Wong, and his marital...

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 7 AT SEATTLE 8 OLD REPUBLIC NATIONAL TITLE Hon. JAMES L. ROBART INSURANCE COMPANY, a Florida || corporation, CASE NO. 2:24-cv-01577-JLR 10 Plaintiff, SECOND STIPULATED MOTION TO 11 Vv. CONTINUE TRIAL DATE AND ORDER 12 JAMES WONG, and his marital community, NOTED FOR: December 4, 2025 13 Defendant.

15 The parties by and through their respective counsel, jointly move the Court for an Order to Continue Trial Date and all associated case deadlines according to the continued trial date. Upon 16 the Court’s invitation (Dkt. No. 18), the parties file this Stipulated Motion, stipulating to continue 17 the trial date to the end of the Court’s current trial calendar (currently spring 2027) and to move 18 all related, unexpired deadlines and deadlines pertaining to discovery (i.e. Disclosure of expert 19 testimony and all motions related to discovery). Good cause exists for such continuance, as addressed below.

The parties recently stipulated to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. In addition, Counsel for 21 Defendant will be unavailable for a month due to scheduled surgery in February of 2026.

22 This was a case for declaratory judgment but the Amended Complaint added a claim for breach of contract. While this matter has been pending, additional factual circumstances have 34 arisen, thus the Amended Complaint adding in the breach of contract claim. Specifically, this action involves an indemnity agreement, which is related to claims pending in the related action SECOND STIPULATION AND ORDER OF CONTINUANCE - | of 4 HOLMQUIST + GARDINER 1000 SECOND AVENUE, SUITE 1770 "i SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104 Walsh Construction Company IT, LLC v. Pine Esker, LLC, et al., U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Washington, Case No. 24-10088-CMA, Adv. Proc. No. 24-01010-CMA (the “Adversary Proceeding”). The actions in the Adversary Proceeding have affected the claims in || this case and have necessitated additional claims and discovery here.

3 To date, the parties have been diligently working on this action including meetings to address the claims between them and the underlying issues in the Adversary Proceeding. The related Adversary Proceeding took longer to schedule the mediation than anticipated, which ° delayed amending the complaint in this case. The parties also have diligently engaged in discovery. Defendant has propounded written discovery onto Plaintiff and the parties are working cooperatively on written discovery and depositions. Despite the parties’ diligence to date, given the added claim and the parties’ schedules, the parties agree they need additional time to fully address the new claim including additional discovery and to fully ° prepare their claims and defenses in this matter. Defendant’s counsel will also need additional time to determine if an expert will be necessary based on Plaintiffs responses to Defendant’s discovery requests.

12 The parties’ first request for a 90-day trial continuance was denied on November 21, 2025, but the Court stated its willingness to consider moving the parties’ trial date to the end of the trial calendar, in Spring 2027 along with a new scheduling order resetting all unexpired pretrial deadlines and inviting the parties to file a stipulated motion if they agreed to such |) continuance.. Dkt. No. 18. The parties have agreed to move the trial date to the end of its trial calendar (i.e. spring of 2027) for this stipulated motion.

7 Due to the above reasons, the parties’ diligence, the availability of the parties, counsel, and court’s trial calendar, counsels stipulate that the Trial Date and case scheduling dates in this matter may be continued from May 11, 2026, to spring of 2027 or the end of the court’s trial 19 calendar, and a new Order Setting Trial Dates be issued.

20 Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16, the case schedule may be extended where good cause exists || and the delay is not caused by carelessness or less than reasonably diligent action. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604 (9th Cir. 1992). “A party demonstrates good cause for modifying a scheduling order by showing that, despite the exercise of due diligence, the 23 scheduled deadlines cannot be met.” Henderson v. ABW Techs., Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9299, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 29, 2009) (citing Zivkovic v. Southern Calif. Edison Co., 302 25}| F.3d 1080, 1087-88 (9th Cir. 2002)).

SECOND STIPULATION AND ORDER OF CONTINUANCE - 2 of 4 HOLMQUIST + GARDINER 1000 SECOND AVENUE, SUITE 1770 "i SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104 Good cause exists here to continue the trial date and all pretrial deadlines, for all of the foregoing reasons including the parties’ diligence in this case and the unique circumstances of this case largely depending on the facts and issues in the Adversary Proceeding. To date, the parties have worked diligently and cooperatively in moving this case forward. Despite their diligence, current deadlines related to discovery (i.e. Expert Witness Disclosure deadline on 5 10/28/2025, discovery motions due by 12/9/25, Expert Witness Disclosure Reports due by 1/9/26, and discovery completed by 1/23/26) cannot be met by Defendant with Plaintiff's newly added claim even while diligently propounding discovery, reviewing documents produced from discovery, taking depositions, and determining if experts are necessary. Good cause exists here as the parties are working diligently to meet the case schedule deadlines but are still unable to do so. The parties are seeking to continue the trial date and all associated case deadlines to the 10 end of the court’s trial calendar. The parties respectfully request that the Court issue an Amended Minute Order Setting Trial Date and Related Dates reflecting the new trial date and pretrial deadlines, setting trial for the end of its current trial calendar (spring 2027 or later).

3 DATED this 4th day of December 2025.

14 RYAN, SWANSON & CLEVELAND, PLLC HOLMQUIST + GARDINER PLLC By: /s/Britenae Pierce By: /s/Michelle F. So 16 Britenae Pierce, WSBA No. 34032 Michelle F. So, WSBA No. 46817 Union Street, Suite 1500 Hamilton H. Gardiner, WSBA No. 37827 17 Seattle, WA 98101 1000 Second Avenue, Suite 1770 (206) 464-4224 Seattle, WA 98104 18 [email protected] (206) 438-9083 Attorneys for Plaintiff [email protected] 19 [email protected] Attorneys for Defendant SECOND STIPULATION AND ORDER OF CONTINUANCE - 3 of 4 HOLMQUIST + GARDINER 1000 SECOND AVENUE, SUITE 1770 "i SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104 > Il. ORDER 3 THIS MATTER having come on regularly for hearing upon the stipulation of the parties above contained; 5 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Trial Date of this case, now set for May 11, 2026, is continued and rescheduled to the end of the Court’s trial calendar, and that the Court shall issue a revised Minute Order Setting Trial Date and Related Dates reflecting the new trial date.

9 DATED this _ 4th day of December 2025.

Wx 11 HONORABLE JUDGE JAMES L. ROBART 12 Stipulated to by: RYAN, SWANSON & CLEVELAND, PLLC 15 /s/Britenae Pierce Britenae Pierce, WSBA No. 34032 16 401 Union Street, Suite 1500 Seattle, WA 98101 17 (206) 464-4224 [email protected] 18 Attorneys for Plaintiff 30 HOLMOQUIST + GARDINER PLLC 21 . /s/Michelle F. So 02 Michelle F. So, WSBA No. 46817 1000 Second Avenue, 23 Suite 1770 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 438-9083 24 [email protected] Attorneys for Defendant SECOND STIPULATION AND ORDER OF CONTINUANCE - 4 of 4 HOLMQUIST + GARDINER 1000 SECOND AVENUE, SUITE 1770 "i SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104