Gradillas et al v. Lincoln General Insurance Company et al

Filing 96

ORDER VACATING MOTION HEARING AND SETTING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. Signed by Judge Charles R. Breyer on 2/13/2013. (crblc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/13/2013)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 13 14 15 18 19 20 21 22 ORDER VACATING MOTION HEARING AND SETTING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE Plaintiffs, v. LINCOLN GENERAL INSURANCE CO., ET AL., Defendants. 16 17 No. C 12-03697 CRB LILLIAN GRADILLAS, ET AL., / In light of Defendant’s Request for an Enlargement of Time (dkt. 91), the Court VACATES the February 22, 2013 hearing currently set for Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend the Complaint, Enter Judgment, and Include Pre-Judgment Interest (dkt. 78), and SETS a case management conference for the same date and time. The parties should come to the conference prepared to discuss a discovery plan that is both (1) limited to the issue of collusion,1 and, because Defendant seeks such discovery to support an eventual motion for 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 See Carlson v. Century Surety, Co., No. 11-356, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40986, at *21-22 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2012) (for a stipulated judgment to be enforceable against an insurer, “it must be (1) reasonable, (2) free from fraud, and (3) free from collusion”). 1 reconsideration, see dkt. 91 at 5, (2) consistent with Civil Local Rule 7-9(b)(1),2 particularly 2 its diligence requirement. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 5 Dated: February 13, 2013 CHARLES R. BREYER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 6 7 8 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 That Rule provides that one basis for reconsideration – presumably the basis at issue here – is that a party show “That at the time of the motion for leave, a material difference in fact or law exists from that which was presented to the Court before entry of the interlocutory order for which reconsideration is sought. The party also must show that in the exercise of reasonable diligence the party applying for reconsideration did not know such fact or law at the time of the interlocutory order.” Id. G:\CRBALL\2012\3697\order vacating hearing.wpd 2

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?