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)
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?