Ramos v. United of Omaha Life Insurance Company
Filing
51
STIPULATION AND ORDER re 50 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Joint Stipulation and [Proposed] Order re Continuance of Case Management Conference filed by Anthony Ramos. Further Case Management Conference set for 8/21/2013 at 2:00 PM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on June 28, 2013. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/28/2013)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Terrence J. Coleman (State Bar No. 172183)
Brian H. Kim
(State Bar No. 215492)
PILLSBURY & LEVINSON, LLP
The Transamerica Pyramid
600 Montgomery St., 31st Floor
San Francisco, California 94111
Telephone: (415) 433-8000
Facsimile: (415) 433-4816
Email: rgrey@pillsburylevinson.com
bkim@pillsburylevinson.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
ANTHONY RAMOS
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
ANTHONY RAMOS,
Plaintiff,
12
13
14
vs.
UNITED OF OMAHA LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY,
15
Defendants.
16
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. C 12-3761 JST
JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER RE CONTINUANCE OF CASE
MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
17
JOINT STIPULATION
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Pursuant to Local Rule 6-2, Plaintiff Anthony Ramos and Defendant United of Omaha Life
Insurance Company hereby stipulate and agree as follows:
1.
On June 6, 2013, the parties argued their cross-motions for judgment under Rule 52 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure before the Court.
2.
On June 25, 2013, the Court on its motion continued the June 26, 2013 Case
Management Conference to July 31, 2013.
3.
From July 26, 2013 until August 9, 2013, Plaintiff’s counsel will be in the East Coast on
26
a prepaid and previously reserved vacation and will therefore be unavailable for the currently
27
rescheduled July 31, 2013 Case Management Conference.
28
-1JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE CONTINUANCE OF CASE MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE
Case No. C 12-3761 JST
1
4.
On June 26, 2013, Plaintiff’s counsel contacted Defendant’s counsel via telephone and
2
informed him of Plaintiff counsel’s unavailability from July 26, 2013 until August 9, 2013 and
3
specifically for the July 31, 2013 Case Management Conference. Defendant’s counsel stated that he
4
will be unavailable on August 14, 2013 due to a prepaid and previously reserved vacation, but would
5
be available on August 21, 2013 for a rescheduled Case Management Conference.
6
5.
Good cause exists to continue the July 31, 2013 Case Management Conference, because
7
Plaintiff’s counsel will be in the East Coast on a prepaid and previously reserved vacation during that
8
date. Plaintiff’s counsel has met and conferred with Defendant’s counsel and the parties have jointly
9
determined that the parties would be mutually available to attend a rescheduled Case Management
10
Conference on August 21, 2013.
11
12
6.
WHEREFORE, the parties respectfully request that the Court continue the Case
Management Conference currently scheduled for July 31, 2013 to August 21, 2013.
13
14
15
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
Dated: June 27, 2013
PILLSBURY & LEVINSON, LLP
16
17
By: /s/ Brian H. Kim
Terrence J. Coleman
Brian H. Kim
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
ANTHONY RAMOS
18
19
20
21
Dated: June 27, 2013
22
BARGER & WOLEN LLP
By: /s/ J. Russell Stedman
J. Russell Stedman
Brendan V. Mullan
Attorneys for Defendant,
UNITED OF OMAHA LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY
23
24
25
26
///
27
///
28
-2JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE CONTINUANCE OF CASE MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE
Case No. C 12-3761 JST
1
[PROPOSED] ORDER
2
Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation above, and with good cause appearing therefore,
3
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Case Management Conference currently scheduled for July 31,
4
2013 shall be continued to August 21, 2013 at 2:00 p.m.
5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
6
7
8
DATED: June 28, 2013
_____________________________
HON. JON S. TIGAR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE CONTINUANCE OF CASE MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE
Case No. C 12-3761 JST
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?