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)

Download PDF
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?