Abdullah v. Accentcare Long Term Disability Plan

Filing 65

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE DATE FOR FILING JOINT STATEMENT. The joint statement is due on or before November 9, 2012. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on November 2, 2012. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/2/2012)

Download PDF
1 2 3 Laurence F. Padway, #89314 LAW OFFICES OF LAURENCE F. PADWAY 1516 Oak Street, Suite 109 Alameda, California 94501 Telephone: (510)814-0680 Facsimile : (510)814-0650 4 Attorneys for Plaintiff Salima Abdullah 5 6 7 8 9 SEDGWICK, DETERT, MORAN & ARNOLD LLP REBECCA A. HULL Bar No. 99802 ERIN A. CORNELL Bar No. 227135 rebecca.hull@sedgwicklaw.com erin.cornell@sedgwicklaw.com 333 Bush Street, 30th Floor San Francisco, California 94104 Telephone: (415) 781-7900 Facsimile: (415) 781-2635 10 11 Attorneys for Defendant AccentCare Long Term Disability Plan and Real Party in Interest Metropolitan Life Insurance Company 12 13 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 15 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 16 17 SALIMA ABDULLAH CASE NO. C 09-02909 MMC 18 Plaintiff, 19 v. STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE DATE FOR FILING JOINT STATEMENT 20 21 22 23 ACCENTCARE LONG TERM DISABILITY PLAN, Defendant. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, 24 Real Party in Interest. 25 26 Plaintiff Salima Abdullah (“plaintiff”), defendant AccentCare Long Term Disability 27 Plan (“Plan”) and Real Party in Interest Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“MetLife”) 28 (collectively “defendants”), through their respective attorneys of record herein, hereby stipulate SF/3188564v1 1 and agree, and respectfully request that the Court order, that the date for the parties to file their 2 joint statement shall be extended one week from November 2, 2012 to November 9, 2012. 3 On September 19, 2012, the Court issued its Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for 4 Judgment and Denying Defendant’s Cross-Motion for Judgment. (ECF No. 63, hereinafter 5 “Order”.) The Order directed the parties to jointly submit a proposed judgment; or in the 6 alternative, if the parties could not come to an agreement regarding the amount or form of 7 judgment, to submit a joint statement setting forth their respective positions. (ECF No. 63, 8 23:27-22:3.) The parties were ordered to submit a proposed judgment or joint statement no 9 later than November 2, 2012. (Id.) 10 The parties have come to an agreement on some issues but outstanding issues remain to 11 which the parties do not agree. The parties have been working together to prepare a joint 12 statement for filing on November 2, 2012. However, defendants’ client representative is 13 located in New York City, and due to Superstorm Sandy earlier this week, communications 14 with their client representative have been difficult. Defendants’ client representative has not 15 been able to complete the review and approval process with regard to the joint statement. Due 16 to these very unusual circumstances, the parties agree that good cause exists for the one-week 17 extension for them to file the joint statement. 18 19 SO STIPULATED AND AGREED, AND RESPECTFULLY REQUESTED: DATED: November 2, 2012 LAW OFFICES OF LAURENCE F. PADWAY 20 By:/s/ Laurence F. Padway (as authorized 11/2/12) Laurence F. Padway Attorney for Plaintiff Salima Abdullah 21 22 23 DATED: November 2, 2012 SEDGWICK, DETERT, MORAN & ARNOLD LLP 24 25 26 27 28 SF/3188564v1 By:/s/ Erin A. Cornell Rebecca A. Hull Erin A. Cornell Attorneys for Defendant AccentCare Long Term Disability Plan and Real Party in Interest Metropolitan Life Insurance Company 2 1 2 ORDER 3 Having considered the parties’ Stipulation, and good cause appearing, it is hereby 4 ORDERED that the last day for the parties to file their joint statement is continued one week to 5 November 9, 2012. 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: November 1, 2012 8 9 HONORABLE MAXINE M. CHESNEY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SF/3188564v1 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?