Braden Partners, LP et al v. Twin City Fire Insurance Company
Filing
145
STIPULATION AND ORDER re 144 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER REGARDING BRIEFING AND HEARING SCHEDULE FOR CROSS MOTIONS FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT filed by Teijin Pharma USA, LLC, Braden Partners, LP. Motions due 9/29/2016. Oppositions due 10/20/2016. Replies due 11/3/2016. Hearing 12/1/2016. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on August 24, 2016. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/24/2016)
1
2
3
4
5
DARREN S. TESHIMA (STATE BAR NO. 238875)
dteshima@orrick.com
HARRY J. MOREN (STATE BAR NO. 284311)
hmoren@orrick.com
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
The Orrick Building
405 Howard Street
San Francisco, California 94105-2669
Telephone:
415-773-5700
Facsimile:
415-773-5759
6
7
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
BRADEN PARTNERS, LP and
TEIJIN PHARMA USA, LLC
8
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
12
13
14
BRADEN PARTNERS, LP, d/b/a PACIFIC
PULMONARY SERVICES, a California limited
partnership, and TEIJIN PHARMA USA, LLC,
d/b/a PACIFIC PULMONARY SERVICES, a
Delaware limited liability company;
Plaintiffs,
15
16
17
Case No. 14-cv-01689-JST
STIPULATION REGARDING
BRIEFING AND HEARING
SCHEDULE FOR CROSS MOTIONS
FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY
JUDGMENT
v.
TWIN CITY FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY,
a Connecticut corporation;
18
Defendant.
19
20
21
22
23
TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES, AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:
Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-12, Plaintiffs Braden Partners, LP, and Teijin Pharma
24
USA, LLC (together, “Pacific Pulmonary Services”) on the one hand, and Defendant Twin City
25
Fire Insurance Company (“Twin City”) on the other hand, by and through their counsel of record
26
herein, stipulate as follows:
27
28
-1-
STIPULATION RE SCHEDULE FOR CROSS
MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
CASE NO. 14-CV-01689-JST
1
RECITALS
2
3
WHEREAS on April 5, 2016, the Court issued a Scheduling Order, which set the deadline
to file dispositive motions as October 28, 2016, ECF No. 132;
4
WHEREAS the parties anticipate filing cross motions for partial summary judgement on
5
Plaintiffs’ First Claim for Relief (Declaratory Relief to Establish the Duty to Advance Defense
6
Costs for the Claim); and
7
WHEREAS on August 19, 2016, during a telephonic case management conference, the
8
Court invited the parties to “file a stipulation with proposed briefing and hearing schedule for
9
their anticipated cross motions for summary judgment,” ECF No. 143.
10
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED:
11
That the parties may file their anticipated cross motions for partial summary judgment on
12
Plaintiffs’ First Claim for Relief according to the following proposed briefing and hearing
13
schedule.
14
Event
Deadline
15
Motions due
19
20
//
22
//
23
//
24
//
25
//
26
//
27
//
28
December 1, 2016 at 2:00 p.m.
//
21
November 3, 2016
Hearing
18
October 20, 2016
Replies due
17
September 29, 2016
Oppositions due
16
//
-2-
STIPULATION RE SCHEDULE FOR CROSS
MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
CASE NO. 14-CV-01689-JST
1
2
Respectfully submitted,
Dated: August 24, 2016
3
MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE, P.C.
By:
4
5
/s/ Christopher C. Frost
CHRISTOPHER C. FROST
Attorneys for Defendant
TWIN CITY FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY
6
7
Dated: August 24, 2016
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
By:
8
9
10
/s/ Darren S. Teshima
DARREN S. TESHIMA
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
BRADEN PARTNERS, LP and
TEIJIN PHARMA USA, LLC
11
12
13
The filer of this document attests that concurrence in the filing has been obtained from the
other signatory, Christopher C. Frost of Maynard, Cooper & Gale, P.C.
14
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
15
By:
16
17
18
/s/ Darren S. Teshima
DARREN S. TESHIMA
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
BRADEN PARTNERS, LP and
TEIJIN PHARMA USA, LLC
19
20
21
22
[PROPOSED] ORDER
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 24, 2016
23
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge
24
25
26
27
28
-3-
STIPULATION RE SCHEDULE FOR CROSS
MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
CASE NO. 14-CV-01689-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?