Del Gallego v. Wells Fargo & Company Long Term Disability Plan et al
Filing
21
Order by Hon. Vince Chhabria granting 20 Stipulation to Further Modify Briefing Schedule for Cross-Motions for Judgment.(knm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/24/2014)
5
SEDGWICK LLP
REBECCA A. HULL Bar No. 99802
rebecca.hull@sedgwicklaw.com
MARK J. HANCOCK Bar No. 160662
mark.hancock@sedgwicklaw.com
333 Bush Street, 30th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 781-7900
Facsimile: (415) 781-2635
6
Attorneys for Defendant
1
2
3
4
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
JOHN DEL GALLEGO,
Case No. C13-4518 VC
10
11
12
13
14
Plaintiff,
v.
STIPULATION TO FURTHER MODIFY
BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR CROSSWELLS FARGO & COMPANY LONG TERM MOTIONS FOR JUDGMENT AND
[PROPOSED] ORDER AS MODIFIED
DISABILITY PLAN, and METROPOLITAN
LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between Plaintiff John Del
Gallego and defendants Wells Fargo & Company LTD Disability Plan and Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company (“defendants”), by and through their respective counsel of record, as
follows:
1.
On May 15, 2014, this Court issued its Joint Case Management Statement &
Order (ECF No. 17) specifying that cross-motions for judgment under Rule 52 were to be filed
on September 15, with oppositions and replies to be filed according to the timetable set by the
Local Rules of Court. A half day-bench trial/hearing was to be set at the Court’s convenience.
2.
On September 15, 2014, the parties stipulated to the issuance of an order
postponing the date for filing the cross motions by one week, to September 22, 2014; and (2)
providing for two weeks, rather than one week, between the filing of opposition and reply briefs.
28
SF/2580223v1
1
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR FURTHER MODIFICATION OF
BRIEFING SCHEDULE
1
2
3.
Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation (ECF No. 18) the court ordered the following
revised briefing and hearing schedule (ECF No. 19):
3
Cross-motions due:
September 22, 2014
4
Oppositions to cross-motions due:
October 6, 2014
5
Replies to oppositions due:
October 20, 2014
6
Half-day bench trial/hearing
At the court’s convenience, other
than during the weeks of November
24 and December 1, 2014
7
8
4.
At this time, the parties desire a further extension of the briefing schedule to allow
9
them to consider certain issues relating to the administrative record for the cross-motions that
10
arose today, September 22, 2014. Having this additional time will allow for the orderly
11
preparation of the motions. The parties hereby stipulate to, and request that the court order, the
12
following further revised briefing and hearing schedule:
13
14
15
16
17
18
Cross-motions due:
October 6, 2014
Oppositions to cross-motions due:
October 20, 2014
Replies to oppositions due:
November 3, 2014
Half-day bench trial/hearing
At the court’s convenience, but not
between November 24, 2014 and
December 5, 2014.
19
November 20, 2014
20
21
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
22
23
24
25
DATED: September 22, 2014
LAW OFFICES OF LAURENCE F. PADWAY
By: /s/ Laurence F. Padway (as authorized on 9/22/14)
Laurence F. Padway
Attorneys for Plaintiff
John Del Gallego
26
27
28
SF/2580223v1
2
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR FURTHER MODIFICATION OF
BRIEFING SCHEDULE
1
DATED: September 22, 2014
SEDGWICK LLP
2
3
4
By: /s/ Mark J. Hancock
Rebecca A. Hull
Mark J. Hancock
Attorneys for Defendants
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SF/2580223v1
3
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR FURTHER MODIFICATION OF
BRIEFING SCHEDULE
ORDER
1
AS MODIFIED
2
S
VINCE CHHABRIA
ERED
O ORD D
United StatesT IS S Judge
I District
RT
8
ER
10
R NIA
hhabr ia
H
9
ince C
J u d ge V
FO
NO
7
IFIE
D
AS MO
LI
6
September 24, 2014
A
5
Date:
S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA
RT
U
O
4
Upon the stipulation of the parties, IT IS SO ORDERED.
UNIT
ED
3
N
D IS T IC T
R
OF
C
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SF/2580223v1
1
Case No. C13-4518 NC
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?