Case Number: 09-12066-JS (Jointly Administered)[1] Adversary No. 10-0599-JS.United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Maryland.
October 19, 2010
STIPULATION AND CONSENT ORDER EXTENDING VARIOUS PRETRIAL AND DISCOVERY DEADLINES IN SCHEDULING ORDER AND RULE 26(f) REPORT APPROVAL
JAMES SCHNEIDER, Bankruptcy Judge
Page 2
Mark J. Friedman, Plaintiff and the Chapter 7 Trustee for the Barton-Cotton Cases and the Defendants stipulate and agree as follows:
1. As disclosed in the Joint Rule 26(f) Report (Adv. Dkt. No. 11), the Trustee has asserted that the Defendants breached an obligation to purchase certain real property (1405 Parker Road, Baltimore County, Maryland, the “Real Property”) and has sought damages and equitable relief related thereto.
2. Defendants have answered denying any obligation (or related breach) to purchase the Real Property.
3. The Rule 26(f) Joint Report provides for various discovery and pretrial deadlines which this Court adopted and approved in its Scheduling Order and Rule 26(f) Report Approval (the “Scheduling Order”; Adv. Dkt. No. 12).
4. However, in the Joint Rule 26(f) Report (¶ 7), the Trustee indicated the prospect that it might shortly after that date enter into an agreement to sell the Real Property to a third party and, in such event, that the Trustee and the Defendants might seek to extend all uncompleted deadlines in order to await whether such transaction closes thereby affecting the nature of the relief sought by the Trustee.
5. The Trustee has entered into a contract to sell the Real Property pursuant to motion with a hearing set for November 5, 2010 (Main Case; Dkt. No. 330).
Page 3
6. Should a closing occur, the nature of the relief sought by the Trustee will be solely in the form of damages which should be in a liquidated amount and should be significantly less than the damages that the Trustee would seek if the Real Property remained unsold.
7. Accordingly, the Trustee and the Defendants believe that litigation of this adversary proceeding is likely to be more efficient and less costly if all of the discovery and pretrial deadlines are extended by 60 days from the dates contained in the Rule 26(f) Joint Report as adopted in the Scheduling Order.
8. Further, a date should be set for the Trustee to file an amended complaint to reflect the consequences of such sale, assuming it closes and for the Defendants to answer such amended complaint.
9. The Trustee and the Defendants do not believe that any extension need be provided with respect to dates specifically set in the Scheduling Order for trial and filing of exhibits.
Accordingly, based on the foregoing, the Trustee and the Defendants request the entry of an order providing:
1. Assuming a sale of the Real Property closes, the Trustee shall file an amended complaint within ten (10) business days thereafter and the Defendants shall have ten (10) business days after service of the amended complaint to answer.
2. All of the discovery related deadlines set forth in paragraph 4 of the Rule 26(f) Joint Report as adopted in the Scheduling Order are extended by sixty (60) calendar days.
3. The dates set forth in paragraphs 3 through 5 of the Scheduling Order relating to the filing of exhibits and witness list and the trial date are not affected hereby.
Page 4
4. If, due to a delay in closing, the deadline for service of written discovery is less than thirty (30) days after the due date for the answer to the amended complaint, this Court will entertain a request for further extension of the discovery related deadlines.
CONSENTED TO:
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the terms of the copy of this consent order submitted to the Court are identical to those set forth in the original consent order; and the signatures represented by the /s/ on this copy reference the signatures of consenting parties on the original consent order.
Dated: October 8, 2010