Free Stipulation - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :04-cv-00163-GIVIS Document 361 Filed 10/O3/2007 Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
DONALD M. DURKIN CONTRACTING, INC. ) . _
)
Plaintiff )
)
v. ) No. 04-0163-GMS
)
~ CITY OF NEWARK, HAROLD F. GODWIN, )
JOHN H. FARRELL, IV, JERRY CLIFTON, )
KARL G. KALBACHER, DAVID J. ATHEY, )
FRANK J. OSBORNE, JR., and CHRISTINA )
REWA, )
)
Defendants/ )
_ " Third Party Plaintiffs, ) ‘
v. )
)
FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, )
)
Third-Party Defendant. )
)
)
CITY OF NEWARK, )
)
Third-Party Plaintiff, )
)
v. )
)
URS CORPORATION, )
)
4 Third-Party Defendant. )
|PROPOSED| STIPULATED BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON DONALD M. DURKIN
CONTRACTING, INC.’S POST-TRIAL MOTIONS
WHEREAS, on December 20, 2006, the Court entered a stipulated briefing schedule on
all post—trial motions;
WHEREAS, on January 26, 2007, the parties tiled post-trial briefs on their respective
post-trial motions;
< . . . .

Case 1 :04-cv-00163-GIVIS Document 361 Filed 10/O3/2007 Page 2 of 3
WHEREAS, on February 8, 2007, the parties filed a stipulationqdeferring briefing on
Donald M. Durkin, lnc.’s ("Durkin") post—trial motions until after the Court has ruled on the City
of Newark’s ("City") post—trial motions; and
WHEREAS, the stipulation requires the parties to meet and confer to consider the impact
of the Court’s ruling on the City’s motion and requires the parties thereafter to submit for the
COUl"t’S approval a briefing schedule to resolve any unresolved issues in Durkin’s post-trial
motions; and
WHEREAS, the Court decided the constitutional portion of the City’s post-trial motions
on September 17, 2007, and requested further briefing on the appropriate measure of damages
for breach of contract; and
WHEREAS, the parties have met and conferred, and agree that Durkin’s post-trial
» motions will be unaffected by a further ruling by the Court on the appropriate measure of
damages on Durkin’s breach of contract claim; and
WHEREAS, Durkin desires to supplement its January 26, 2007 motion for attorneys’ fees
under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, and the City does not oppose Durkin’s request to supplement, subject to
’ its right to oppose the motion.
{ ‘ It is therefore stipulated by the parties, subject to approval by the Court, that briefing on
Durkin’s post-trial motions shall proceed as follows:
Durkin’s supplemented opening submission: October 12, 2007
n City’s answering brief: A November 14, 2007
Durkin’s reply brief: December 3, 2007
V 2

‘ Case 1 :04-cv—OO163-GIVIS Document 361 Filed 10/O3/2007 Page 3 of 3
J POWELL, TRACHTMAN, LOGAN, CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ LLP
CARRLE & LOMBARDO, P.C.
/s/ Paul Logan /s/ Collins J Seitz, Jr.
Paul Logan (Bar No. 3339) Collins J. Seitz, Jr. (Bar No. 2237)
475 Allendale Road, Suite 200 Max B. Walton (Bar No. 3876)
King of Prussia, PA 19406 1007 North Orange Street
(610) 354-9700 P.O. Box 2207
Wilmington, DE 19899
TYBOUT REDFEARN & PELL (302) 658-9141
Attorneys for Defendants, City of
/s/ David G. Calle); Newarlq Harold F Godwin, John H
David G. Culley (Bar No. 2141) Farrell, HC Jerry Clwon, Karl G.
750 South Madison Street, Suite 400 Kalbacher, David J Athey, FrankJ
P.O. Box 2092 Osborne, Jr., and Christina Rewa
Wihnington, DE 19899
(302) 658-6901
V Attorneys for Plaintwf
Donald M Durkin Contracting Inc.
e DATED: October 3, 2007
‘ ITIS SO ORDERED, this day of October, 2007.
Gregory M. Sleet, U.S.D.J.
3

Case 1:04-cv-00163-GMS

Document 361

Filed 10/03/2007

Page 1 of 3

Case 1:04-cv-00163-GMS

Document 361

Filed 10/03/2007

Page 2 of 3

Case 1:04-cv-00163-GMS

Document 361

Filed 10/03/2007

Page 3 of 3