Nelson v. Hartford Life Insurance Company

Filing 80

ORDER granting 79 STIPULATION - to Continue Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Hartford Life Insurance Company. Reset Deadlines as to 75 MOTION for Summary Judgment or in the Alternative, Partial Summary Judgment,. Responses due by 12/30/2014. Replies due by 1/6/2015. Motion Hearing reset for 1/16/2015 10:00 AM before Hon. Charles R. Breyer. Signed by Judge Charles R. Breyer on 11/26/2014. (beS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/26/2014)

1 Emilie E. de la Motte (SBN: 233557)
[e-mail]
2 MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK, SILVER & WILSON
555 12th Street, Suite 1500
3 Oakland, California 94607
Telephone: [phone]
4 Facsimile: [phone]
5 Attorneys for Third-Party Defendant
and Cross-Claimant CITY OF OAKLAND
6

EXEMPT FROM FILING FEES
GOV’T CODE § 6103

7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

10 DESSIE R. NELSON,

Case No. 13-CV-04196-CRB

11

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO
CONTINUE HEARING ON HARTFORD
LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

12

Plaintiff,
v.

13 THE HARTFORD, and DOES 1 through 10,
Inclusive,
14
Defendants.
15
HARTFORD LIFE INSURANCE
16 COMPANY,
17
18

Date:
Time:
Ctrm:

December 12, 2014
10:00 a.m.
6, 17th Floor

Action Filed:
Trial Date:

May 20, 2013
None Set

Third-Party Plaintiff,
v.

Action Removed: September 10, 2013

19 JULIANA JAMES, as Administrator of the
Estate of Clarence James, CITY OF
20 OAKLAND, and ROES 1 through 50,
Inclusive,
21
Third-Party Defendants.
22
CITY OF OAKLAND,
23
Cross-Claimant,
24
v.
25
JULIANA JAMES, as Administrator of the
26 Estate of Clarence James, and MOES 1
through 10, Inclusive,
27
Cross-Defendants.
28
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE HEARING ON SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION

1

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

2

BE IT HEREBY STIPULATED BETWEEN Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff Hartford

3 Life Insurance Company (Hartford) and Third-Party Defendant City of Oakland to continue the
4 hearing date for Hartford’s motion for summary judgment, currently scheduled for December 12,
5 2014. This stipulation is agreed upon by Hartford and City of Oakland so that they may have
6 additional time to: 1) further engage in meet and confer efforts regarding Hartford’s discovery
7 responses; and 2) further engage in negotiations for an informal resolution of Hartford’s summary
8 judgment motion. In order to further engage in these negotiations, Hartford and City of Oakland
9 have stipulated and ask the Court to agree to have City of Oakland’s opposition due by December
10 30, 2014, Hartford’s reply due by January 6, 2015 and to hear Hartford’s summary judgment
11 motion on Friday, January 16, 2015 at 10:00 a.m.
12

SO STIPULATED.
HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP

13
14

DATED: November 17, 2014

15

By:

16

JAMES A. HAZLEHURST
Attorneys for Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff
HARTFORD LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY

17
18

MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK, SILVER & WILSON

19
DATED: November 17, 2014
20
21

By:
EMILIE E. DE LA MOTTE
Attorneys for Third-Party Defendant
and Cross-Claimant CITY OF OAKLAND

23
IT IS SO ORDERED.

S
UNIT
ED

26

ED

ORDER

harle
Judge C

H

ER

LI

RT

28

FO

HON. CHARLES R. BREYER
UNITED STATES DISTRICTrCOURT JUDGE
ye
s R. Bre
NO

27

O
IT IS S

RT
U
O

25 DATED: November 26, 2014

ISTRIC
ES D
TC
AT
T

A

24

R NIA

22

C
N
F
D IS T IC T O
R
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE HEARING ON SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION

1