G&C Auto Body Inc et al v. GEICO General Insurance Company et al

Filing 463

ORDER GRANTING 461 Motion for Clarification of Stay or Alternatively, for Leave to Object to Magistrate's Ruling to Preserve Geico's Position. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 10/21/08. (jjo, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/21/2008)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
[PROPOSED] ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION G&C AUTO BODY, INC., a California Corporation, and DIBBLE'S AUTOBODY, the Collision Works, a sole proprietorship, Plaintiffs vs. GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, an Iowa corporation, GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, a Maryland corporation, GEICO CASUALTY COMPANY, a Maryland corporation, and GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY, a Maryland corporation, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants. ...(caption continued next page) CASE NO.: 3:06-CV-04898 JSW The Honorable Jeffrey White [PROPOSED] ORDER RE GEICO'S REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF STAY, OR ALTERNATIVELY, FOR LEAVE TO OBJECT TO MAGISTRATE'S RULING TO PRESERVE GEICO'S POSITION Date: Time: Courtroom: DATE OF REMOVAL: TRIAL DATE: August 14, 2006 None

Case No.: 3:06-CV-04898 JSW

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, an Iowa corporation, GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, a Maryland corporation, GEICO CASUALTY COMPANY, a Maryland corporation, and GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY, a Maryland corporation, Counter-claimants, vs. G&C AUTO BODY, INC., a California Corporation, and DIBBLE'S AUTOBODY, the Collision Works, a sole proprietorship, Counter-defendants. The Court having considered GEICO's Request For Clarification of Stay, Or Alternatively, For Leave To Object To Magistrate's Ruling To Preserve GEICO's Position and being fully advised in the particulars, hereby orders as follows: On October 8, 2008, this Court stayed this matter under November 21, 2008, or until substitute counsel appears for G&C. [Doc. # 452] On October 9, 2008, during the stay, the Magistrate Judge issued an Order that GEICO could take no more discovery in this case. [Doc. # 454] Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), GEICO has 10 days to object to the Magistrate Judge's ruling, or until October 23, 2008. For these reasons, the Court ORDERS that GEICO's Request For Clarification of Stay, Or Alternatively, For Leave To Object To Magistrate's Ruling To Preserve GEICO's Position is granted. The stay tolls the 10 day period to object until 10 days after the stay is lifted [or alternatively, GEICO may lodge its objections to the October 9 Order on October 23, 2008.] IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: October 21, 2008 Honorable Jeffrey S. White United States District Judge Northern District of California -2[PROPOSED] ORDER

Case No.: 3:06-CV-04898 JSW