Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Newlife Sciences LLC v. Landmark American Insurance Company, 3:13-cv-05145-RS. (2014)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20140423914 Visitors: 14
Filed: Apr. 22, 2014
Latest Update: Apr. 22, 2014
Summary: STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE HEARING ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND EXTEND BRIEFING SCHEDULE PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 6-1(b) RICHARD SEEBORG, District Judge. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-1(b), Defendant Landmark American Insurance Company ("Landmark"), and Plaintiffs New Life Sciences LLC, ("NLS"), John Crosson, and C. Read McLean, (collectively, "the Plaintiffs") by and through their respective counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows: 1. W
More

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE HEARING ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND EXTEND BRIEFING SCHEDULE PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 6-1(b)

RICHARD SEEBORG, District Judge.

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-1(b), Defendant Landmark American Insurance Company ("Landmark"), and Plaintiffs New Life Sciences LLC, ("NLS"), John Crosson, and C. Read McLean, (collectively, "the Plaintiffs") by and through their respective counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows:

1. WHEREAS, Plaintiffs have filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (the "Motion") (Docket # 39).

2. WHEREAS, Plaintiffs' Motion is presently scheduled to be heard on May 15, 2014 at 1:30 p.m.

3. WHEREAS, pursuant to Local Rule 7-3, Landmark's Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion must be filed and served not more than 14 days after the Motion was filed.

4. WHEREAS, the commentary to Local Rule 7-2 states as follows:

The time periods set forth in Civil L.R. 7-2 and 7-3 regarding notice, response and reply to motions are minimum time periods. For complex motions, parties are encouraged to stipulate to or seek a Court order establishing a longer notice period with correspondingly longer periods for response or reply. See Civil L.R. 1-4 and 1-5.

5. WHEREAS, given the issues raised by the Motion, the Parties, by and through their respective counsel of record, agree to continue the hearing on the Motion to May 22, 2014.

6. WHEREAS, the Parties, by and through their respective counsel of record, agree to extend the briefing schedule so as to allow Landmark until May 1, 2014 to file and serve its Opposition to the Motion.

7. WHEREAS, the Parties, by and through their respective counsel of record, agree to extend the briefing schedule so as to allow Plaintiffs until May 8, 2014 to file and serve their Reply in support of the Motion.

8. WHEREAS, the only other time modifications previously made in this case were the Parties' Stipulation to Extend Time to Respond to the Initial Complaint (Docket #10), the Parties' Stipulation to Continue the Case Management Conference (Docket #22), and the Parties' Stipulation to Extend Time to File Answer to Complaint (Docket #31).

9. WHEREAS, the requested time modification would have the limited effect of continuing the hearing on the Motion, as well as the attendant briefing dates, by only one week.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the Parties, through their respective counsel, that Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, now set for May 15, 2014, will be continued to May 22, 2014, that Landmark's Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment must be filed and served by May 1, 2014, and that Plaintiffs' Reply in support of the Motion must be filed and served by May 8, 2014.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

The hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary shall be continued to May 22, 2014. Landmark's Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary shall be filed and served by May 1, 2014 and Plaintiffs' Reply in support of the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment shall be filed and served by May 8, 2014.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer