Lennar Mare Island, LLC v. Steadfast Insurance Company

Filing 448

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 1/25/2017 ORDERING that by no later than 1/26/2017 at 5:00 p.m., LMI shall file a brief statement regarding whether it opposes Steadfasts request to continue the 2/2/2017 hearing to 2/16/2017, and , if so, its reasons why Steadfasts request should be denied. If LMI does not oppose a continuance, but has a scheduling conflict with the courts proposed 2/16/2017 hearing date, it shall state as much and provide alternative dates for the continued hearing. If the court does not receive a response from LMI by the above deadline, it will continue the hearing date to 2/16/2017. (Donati, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LENNAR MARE ISLAND, et al.,

12

Plaintiffs,

13
14
15

v.
STEADFAST INSURANCE COMPANY,
et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

LENNAR MARE ISLAND, LLC,

18

No. 2:16-cv-0291-KJM-KJN

Plaintiff,

19
20

No. 2:12-cv-2182-KJM-KJN

ORDER

v.
STEADFAST INSURANCE COMPANY,

21

Defendant.

22
23

On January 25, 2017, defendant Steadfast Insurance Company’s (“Steadfast”) counsel

24

emailed the court a letter requesting the court to continue the hearing on plaintiff Lennar Mare

25

Island, LLC’s (“LMI”) motions to compel filed in these two actions that are currently scheduled

26

for hearing on February 2, 2017.1 Steadfast’s counsel requests that the court continue the hearing

27
28

1

Steadfast’s counsel also cc’ed plaintiff’s counsel on the emails he sent to the court containing
the letter.
1

1

date an additional week due to the limited time he will have to prepare Steadfast’s portions of the

2

joint statements regarding the parties’ discovery disputes given the current hearing date, the

3

existence of potential scheduling conflicts, and his belief that the parties may be able to resolve

4

one or more of their discovery disputes without court intervention if given additional time. The

5

court is inclined to grant Steadfast’s request, but is unavailable on the date on which he seeks to

6

have the hearing rescheduled. Furthermore, LMI has not had an opportunity to respond and voice

7

its opposition, if any, to Steadfast’s request. Accordingly, the court maintains the current

8

February 2, 2017 hearing date, but directs LMI to file a brief statement regarding whether it

9

opposes a continuance of that hearing to February 16, 2017, at 10:00 a.m.

10

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that by no later than January 26,

11

2017, at 5:00 p.m., LMI shall file with the court a brief statement regarding whether it opposes

12

Steadfast’s request to continue the February 2, 2017 hearing to February 16, 2017, and, if so, its

13

reasons why Steadfast’s request should be denied. If LMI does not oppose a continuance, but has

14

a scheduling conflict with the court’s proposed February 16, 2017 hearing date, it shall state as

15

much and provide alternative dates for the continued hearing.2 If the court does not receive a

16

response from LMI by the above deadline, it will continue the hearing date to February 16, 2017.

17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 25, 2017

19
20
KJN/amd
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

Similarly, if Steadfast has a scheduling conflict with this proposed date, its counsel shall contact
plaintiff’s counsel and the undersigned’s courtroom deputy and provide alternate dates for a
continued hearing.
2