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)

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