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)
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?