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)

Download PDF
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?