Cantrall v. Hartford Financial Services Group et al

Filing 36

ORDER GRANTING 35 STIPULATION Re Briefing Schedule. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 7/13/12`. (jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/13/2012)

Download PDF
Case3:12-cv-01863-JSW Document35 Filed07/11/12 Page1 of 5 1 GERAGOS & GERAGOS 2 A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION LAWYERS 3 644 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles, California 90017-3411 Telephone (213) 625-3900 Facsimile (213) 625-1600 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 MARK J. GERAGOS SBN 108325 SHELLEY KAUFMAN SBN 100696 BENJAMIN MEISELAS SBN 277412 JOHN M. CLIMACO SBN 213224 JOHN R. CLIMACO JOHN A. PECA DAVID M. CUPPAGE SCOTT D. SIMPKINS CLIMACO, WILCOX, PECA, TARANTINO & GAROFOLI, CO., L.P.A. 55 Public Square Suite 1950 Cleveland, Ohio 44113 Phone: (216) 621-8484 Fax: (216) 771-1632 EDWARD W. COCHRAN 20030 Marchmont Road Shaker Heights, Ohio 44122 Phone: 216-751-5546 Fax: 216-751-6630 Attorneys for Plaintiff 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 18 NOTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Jessica Cantrall, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated and the general public, vs. Hartford Financial Services Group, Hartford Fire Insurance Company; Property and Casualty Insurance Company of Hartford; Twin City Fire Insurance Company Hartford Underwriters Insurance Company; Hartford Insurance Company of the Midwest; Hartford Casualty Insurance Company; Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company; Hartford Specialty Company and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. CV12-01863 JSW STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RESCHEDULING BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS -1- Case3:12-cv-01863-JSW Document35 Filed07/11/12 Page2 of 5 1 Plaintiff Jessica Cantrall (“Plaintiff”), on the one hand, and Defendants 2 Hartford Financial Services Group, Hartford Fire Insurance Company; Property and 3 Casualty Insurance Company of Hartford; Twin City Fire Insurance Company 4 Hartford Underwriters Insurance Company; Hartford Insurance Company of the 5 Midwest, Hartford Casualty Insurance Company; Hartford Accident and Indemnity 6 Company; Hartford Specialty Company (collectively, “Defendants”), on the other 7 hand, by and through their counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows: 8 9 10 WHEREAS, on April 13, 2012, Plaintiff filed this action against Defendants in the United States District Court Northern District of California (Doc. 1); 11 12 WHEREAS, on July 3, 2012, Defendants filed an Amended Notice of Motion 13 and Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint. The Motion is currently set to be heard 14 on September 14, 2012 at 9:00 a.m. (Doc. 21); 15 16 WHEREAS, pursuant to Civil L.R. 7-3, Plaintiff’s Opposition is due for 17 submission on July 13, 2012, based upon the original filing date of the motion. 18 Defendant’s Reply is due for submission on July 20, 2012. 19 20 Defendants initially sought an additional two weeks in prepare their Motion to 21 Dismiss until June 12, 2012, and then a second stipulation to file the Motion on June 22 29, 2012. At that time, because of the July 4th holiday, Defendants agreed that they 23 would stipulate to an extension of time for Plaintiffs to file the opposition, if 24 necessary. Initially, Plaintiffs believed that the opposition could be filed within the 25 time frame of the service of the initial Motion; however Defendants indicated that 26 they would require further time to submit their reply based upon vacation schedules of 27 counsel. 28 -2- Case3:12-cv-01863-JSW Document35 Filed07/11/12 Page3 of 5 1 As the Motion raises numerous issues and attaches multiple exhibits, Plaintiff 2 requires additional time to submit her opposition in light of the holiday week which 3 has caused some delay in preparing the opposition and various holiday schedules of 4 counsel involved in the preparation of the opposition. 5 Further, under the current briefing schedule Defendants' lead counsel will be 6 7 unavailable for four of the seven days Defendants have to prepare their reply brief due 8 to vacation. Furthermore, additional counsel necessary to the preparation of the reply 9 will be out of the country from July 14 through 26. 10 WHEREAS, Plaintiff and Defendants each desire additional time to oppose and 11 12 reply to the Motion. Based on this fact and based on the fact that Defendants’ Notice 13 of Motion is set sufficiently in advance to permit an enlargement of the current 14 briefing schedule, the Parties hereby stipulate pursuant to Civil L.R. 6-2, and hereby 15 respectfully request the Court’s permission to change the current briefing schedule 16 accordingly: 17 /// 18 /// 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3- Case3:12-cv-01863-JSW Document35 Filed07/11/12 Page4 of 5 1 a) The date for filing Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss 2 be changed to July 23, 2012. 3 b) The date for filing Defendants’ Reply to Plaintiff’s Opposition be changed 4 to August 9, 2012. 5 c) The hearing on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss remains unchanged. 6 7 8 DATED: July 11, 2012 GERAGOS & GERAGOS, APC 9 By: /S/ SHELLEY KAUFMAN Attorneys for Plaintiff JESSICA CANTRALL 10 11 12 13 DATED: July 11, 2012 STEIN & LUBIN LLP 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 By: /S/ ELLEN A. CIRANGLE Attorneys for Defendants HARTFORD FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY; PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY OF HARTFORD; TWIN CITY FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY HARTFORD UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY; HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE MIDWEST, HARTFORD CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY; HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY COMPANY; HARTFORD SPECIALTY COMPANY 24 25 26 27 28 -4- Case3:12-cv-01863-JSW Document35 Filed07/11/12 Page5 of 5 1 Therefore, good cause appearing, IT IS ORDERED THAT: 2 1. Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss shall be due on July 3 23, 2012. 4 2. Defendants’ Reply to Plaintiff’s Opposition shall be due on August 9, 2012. 5 3. The hearing date on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, currently set for 6 September 14, 2012 at 9:00 a.m. shall remain unchanged. 7 8 9 10 DATED: July 13 ___________, 2012 By: ___________________________ HON. JEFFREY S. WHITE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -5-

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?