DGP Associates, LP v. American Guarantee & Liability Insurance Company et al

Filing 20

ORDER re 19 Opposition/Response to Motion, filed by American Guarantee & Liability Insurance Company. Zurich Defendant's sur-reply due 3/7/13. Motion hearing reset to 3/14/13 at 1:30 p.m.. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 2/28/13. (bpf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/28/2013)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 BISHOP | BARRY | DRATH 2000 POWELL STREET SUITE 1425 EMERYVILLE, C ALIFORN IA 94608 T ELEPHONE: (510) 596-0888 F ACSIMILE: (510) 596-0899 9 Jonathan Gross, State Bar No. 122010 jgross@bishop-barry.com Victor Jacobellis, State Bar No. 278988 vjacobellis@bishop-barry.com BISHOP | BARRY | DRATH 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1425 Emeryville, California 94608 Telephone: (510) 596-0888 Facsimile: (510) 596-0899 Attorneys for Defendants AMERICAN GUARANTEE AND LIABILITY INSURANCE COMPANY; AMERICAN ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY; ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY; and ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY OF ILLINOIS 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 13 DGP ASSOCIATES, LP, 14 Plaintiff, 15 v. 16 AMERICAN GUARANTEE AND LIABILITY INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., 17 18 Defendants. Case No. 3:12-cv-06348 EMC [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO REPLY TO DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO REMAND Date: March 7, 2013 Time: 1:30 p.m. Courtroom: 5 Judge: Hon. Edward M. Chen 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 /// 1 [PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND CASE NO. 3:12-CV-06348 EMC 1 2 ORDER The Court having considered all pleadings and papers submitted by the parties regarding 3 the Zurich Defendants’ Objection to and Request to Strike New Evidence and Argument in 4 Plaintiff’s Reply To Defendant’s Opposition to Motion to Remand or, in the Alternative, Request 5 for Leave to File Sur-Reply, including Declarations and Exhibits, the materials on file with the 6 Court, and finding that Plaintiff has presented new evidence and arguments in its Reply to 7 Defendants’ Opposition to Motion to Remand, 8 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: (a) The Zurich Defendants’ Motion is GRANTED; 10 (b) The Declaration of John Piccetti in Support of Plaintiff’s Reply to Defendants’ Opposition to Motion to Remand is stricken; and (c) The Declaration of Josephine Lo, and all attached exhibits, in Support of Plaintiff’s Reply to Defendants’ Opposition to Motion to Remand is stricken; 11 13 (b) The Zurich Defendants are granted leave to file a sur-reply to respond to the new evidence and arguments raised in Plaintiff’s Reply to Defendants’ Opposition to Motion to Remand; and March 7 The Zurich Defendants’ sur-reply is to be filed by _______________, 2013. (c) The motion hearing is reset from March 7, 2013 to March 14, 2013 at 1:30 p.m. 17 18 19 20 22 23 27 28 AS hen rd M. C dwa Judge E ER H 26 RT 25 By: ______________________________ Honorable Edward M. Chen D RDERE S SO States District Court Judge IUnited O FIED IT Northern District of California MODI NO 24 2/28 Dated: __________, 2013 S DISTRICT TE C TA RT U O 21 IT SO ORDERED, R NIA 16 FO (a) LI 15 or in the alternative, A 14 S 12 UNIT ED BISHOP | BARRY | DRATH 2000 POWELL STREET SUITE 1425 EMERYVILLE, C ALIFORN IA 94608 T ELEPHONE: (510) 596-0888 F ACSIMILE: (510) 596-0899 9 N F D IS T IC T O R C 2 [PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND CASE NO. 3:12-cv-06348-EMC

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?