American General Life Insurance Company v. Razmik Khachatourians et al

Filing 137

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A FIRST AMENDED ANSWER 128 AND VACATED THE MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE THREE RELATED CASES AS MOOT 127 by Judge Dean D. Pregerson. (lc) Modified on 6/18/2012 (lc).

1
2

O

3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

AMERICAN GENERAL LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY,

12
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
15
16
17

RAZMIK KHACHATOURIANS,
individually and as a
principal of LIGHTHOUSE
INSURANCE MARKETING, et al.,
Defendants.
___________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CV 08-06408 DDP (RZx)
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION
FOR LEAVE TO FILE A FIRST AMENDED
ANSWER AND VACATED THE MOTION TO
CONSOLIDATE THREE RELATED CASES
AS MOOT
[Docket Nos. 127, 128]

18
19

Presently before the court are Defendant Brian A. Manson’s: 1)

20

Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Answer to the First

21

Amended Complaint (“Motion to Amend”); and 2) Motion to Consolidate

22

Three Related Cases (“Motion to Consolidate”).

23

Plaintiff National Financial Partners Corp. is the sole

24

remaining plaintiff in this action.

25

Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to either Motion, or any

26

other filing that could be construed as a request for a

27

continuance.

28

indicating that Plaintiff informed Defendant that it would not

As of the date of this Order,

Further, Defendant has submitted a Declaration

1

oppose the Motion to Amend.

In Defendant’s Notice of Motion to

2

Consolidate, Defendant also states that Plaintiff had previously

3

agreed to stipulate to consolidation.

4

Central District of California Local Rule 7-9 requires an

5

opposing party to file an opposition to any motion at least twenty-

6

one (21) days prior to the date designated for hearing the motion.

7

Additionally, Local Rule 7-12 provides that “[t]he failure to file

8

any required document, or the failure to file it within the

9

deadline, may be deemed consent to the granting or denial of the

10

motion.”

11

2012.

The hearings on Defendant’s Motions were set for May 21,

Any opposition was therefore due by April 30, 2012.

12

Accordingly, pursuant to Local Rule 7-12 and in light of

13

Defendant’s representations that Plaintiff does not oppose either

14

Motion, the court deems Plaintiff’s failure to oppose as consent to

15

granting the Motions.

16

Motion to Amend.

17

same trial dates and vacates the Motion to Consolidate as moot.

The court therefore GRANTS Defendant’s

The Court notes the three cases already have the

18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20
21
22

Dated: June 18, 2012
DEAN D. PREGERSON
United States District Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28
2