Hawker et al v. BancInsurance, Inc. et al

Filing 109

JOINT APPLICATION AND ORDER ADDRESSING EXCESS PAGE LIMIT. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 3/19/2014. (Hernandez, M)

1

5

Patrick J. Richard (SBN 131046)
[e-mail]
James H. Vorhis (SBN 245034)
[e-mail]
NOSSAMAN LLP
50 California Street, 34th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 415.398.2439

6

-and-

7

Thomas D. Long (CA 105987)
[e-mail]
NOSSAMAN LLP
777 S. Figueroa St., 34th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 213.612.7801

2
3
4

8
9
10
11
12
13

Edward F. Donohue (SBN 112730)
[e-mail]
Peter L. Isola (SBN 144146)
[e-mail]
John T. Meno (SBN 231238)
[e-mail]
HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP
One California Street, 18th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 415.834.9070
Attorneys for Defendant BancInsure, Inc.
Jonathan D. Joseph (SBN 90564)
Jonathan M. Cohen (SBN 168207)
[e-mail]
JOSEPH AND COHEN, A P.C.
1855 Market Street
San Francisco, CA 94103
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 415.874.1997

Attorneys for the Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation as Receiver
for County Bank, Plaintiff as assignee
of certain claims

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

15

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

16

THOMAS T. HAWKER; JOHN J.
INCANDELA; DAVE KRAECHAN;
17 EDWIN JAY LEE; EDWARD J. ROCHA;
and FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE
18 CORPORATION, as Receiver,
19
20

Case No.: CV F 12-1261-SAB
JOINT APPLICATION FOR ORDER
TO ALLOW REPLY BRIEFS FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN EXCESS
OF PAGE LIMIT

Plaintiffs,
vs.

21

BANCINSURE, INC. and DOES 1 through
10, inclusive
22
Defendants.
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

1

The undersigned parties, through their counsel, hereby apply for leave to file reply

2

briefs to their cross-motions for summary judgment of not more than fifteen (15) pages.

3

This Court’s Standing Order limits reply briefs to ten (10) pages unless leave is granted

4

by the Court. Standing Order, ¶ 9. The Parties believe that good cause exists for this

5

Court to grant the filing of briefs in excess of the ten-page limit because of the

6

complexity of the legal and factual issues presented by the cross-motions. Specifically,

7

this Application is based on the following facts:

8
9
10
11

1.

The FDIC-R filed its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on January 31,

2014. Docket no. 76. BancInsure concurrently filed its Motion for Summary
Adjudication on the same date. Docket no. 74.
2.

On March 7, 2014, the FDIC-R and BancInsure each filed opposition briefs

12

to the respective motions. Docket nos. 91, 97. The FDIC-R’s reply to BancInsure’s

13

Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and BancInsure’s reply to the FDIC-R’s Motion

14

for Summary Adjudication are both due on March 26, 2014. Docket No. 90 (Fourth

15

Amended Scheduling Order). The Motions are scheduled to be heard before this Court

16

on April 2, 2014 at 9:30am. Id.

17

3.

Pursuant to this Court’s Standing Order, the page limit for reply briefs for

18

motions other than those brought under Local Rule 251 is ten (10) pages. Standing

19

Order, ¶ 9.

20

4.

The Parties have met-and-conferred regarding the page limitation for the

21

reply briefs, and believe that good cause exists for the filing of briefs in excess of the ten-

22

page limit due to the complexity of the facts and law at issue, and given the extensive

23

evidence presented in this case. The Parties also believe extended briefing will be

24

beneficial to the Court because it will permit a more thorough legal and factual analysis

25

of the issues raised in the motion and opposition papers.

26
27
28

5.

Accordingly, the Parties stipulate to and respectfully request that the Court

issue an Order that permits reply briefing to exceed ten (10) pages, but not to exceed fifteen
2

1

(15) pages. However, the parties are also mindful of the Court’s busy schedule, and will

2

use their best efforts to be as concise as possible in this reply briefing.

3
4

DATED: March 18, 2014
HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP

5
6

: By:___/s/ Edward F. Donahue

Edward F. Donohue
Attorneys for Defendant BancInsure, Inc.

7
8
9

DATED: March 18, 2014

NOSSAMAN LLP

10
: By:___/s/ James H. Vorhis

11

James H. Vorhis
Attorneys for Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation as Receiver for County Bank,
Plaintiff as assignee of certain claims

12
13
14

DATED: March 18, 2014

JOSEPH & COHEN, A P.C.

15
: By: /s/ Jonathan M. Cohen

16

Jonathan M. Cohen
Attorneys for the Insureds

17
18
19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

March 19, 2014
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3