Illinois Union Insurance Company v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc.

Filing 129

STIPULATION AND ORDER re 127 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER re: EXTENDING TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION AND REPLY BRIEFS (PLAINTIFF INSURERS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE: RESCISSION); filed by Illinois Union Insurance Company. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on March 16, 2016. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/16/2016)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Thomas M. Jones, Pro Hac Vice Charles E. Wheeler, CSB No. 82915 COZEN O'CONNOR 501 West Broadway, Suite 1610 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: 619.234.1700 Facsimile: 619.234.7831 tjones@cozen.com cwheeler@cozen.com Attorneys for Plaintiff Illinois Union Insurance Company UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 9 10 11 ILLINOIS UNION INSURANCE COMPANY, an Illinois corporation, 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Plaintiff, v. INTUITIVE SURGICAL, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant. Case No.: 3:13-cv-04863-JST JOINT STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION AND REPLY BRIEFS (PLAINTIFF INSURERS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE: RESCISSION); and [PROPOSED] ORDER. _______________________________________ AND CONSOLIDATED ACTIONS 19 20 21 Plaintiffs Illinois Union Insurance Company (“Illinois Union”) and Navigators Specialty 22 Insurance Company (“Navigators”) (collectively the “Insurers”) and Defendant Intuitive Surgical, 23 Inc. (“Intuitive”) jointly stipulate, pursuant to Civil Local Rules 6-1(b), 6-2, and 7-12, to extend the 24 time to file any opposition and reply briefs regarding the Insurers’ summary judgment motions on 25 rescission (the “Motions”). 26 27 WHEREAS, on March 15, 2016, Illinois Union and Navigators filed and served their Motions and set the Motions for hearing on May 26, 2016; 28 JOINT STIP. TO EXTEND TIME RE: INSURERS’ MSJS CASE NO. 3:13-CV-04863-JST 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 WHEREAS, as currently scheduled, Intuitive’s oppositions to the Insurers’ Motions would be due March 29, 2016 and the Insurers’ replies would be due April 5, 2016; WHEREAS, all parties have agreed to a mutual one-week extension for both Intuitive’s oppositions and the Insurers’ replies; Now therefore, the parties, through their undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate as follows: • That the deadline for filing any opposition(s) to the Insurers’ Motions be extended by one week to April 5, 2016; and • That the deadline for filing any reply(ies) in support of the Insurers’ Motions be extended by one week to April 19, 2016. 10 11 12 13 14 DATED: March 16, 2016 COZEN O’CONNOR By: /s/ Charles E. Wheeler Attorneys for Plaintiff ILLINOIS UNION INSURANCE COMPANY 15 16 HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP 17 By: ____________/s/ John S. Pierce_______________ Attorneys for Plaintiff NAVIGATORS SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY 18 19 20 21 22 SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP By: /s/ James P. Schaefer Attorneys for Defendant INTUITIVE SURGICAL, INC. 23 24 25 26 Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 5-1(i), the filer attests that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from the signatories above. 27 /s/ Charles E. Wheeler 28 JOINT STIP. TO EXTEND TIME RE: INSURERS’ MSJS CASE NO. 3:13-CV-04863-JST 1 5 6 7 8 1. The deadline for filing any opposition(s) to the Insurers’ Motions for summary judgment on rescission be extended by one week to April 5, 2016; and 2. The deadline for filing any reply(ies) in support of the Insurers’ Motions for summary judgment on rescission be extended by one week to April 19, 2016. IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 S UNIT ED 12 The Honorable Jon. S. Tigar United States District Court Judge VED APPRO NO 11 DATED: March 16, 2016 nS J u d ge J o 13 14 RT ER 16 17 . Ti ga r A H 15 RT U O 10 S DISTRICT TE C TA R NIA 4 HEREBY ORDERED THAT: FO 3 PURSUANT TO THE FOREGOING STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES, IT IS LI 2 [PROPOSED] ORDER N F D IS T IC T O R C 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME RE: INSURERS’ MSJS CASE NO. 3:13-CV-04863-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?