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)
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?