Hart v. Unum Life Insurance Company of America et al

Filing 78

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 76 Administrative Motion to Vacate 75 the Court's June 14, 2017 Order. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 6/20/17. (tehlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/20/2017)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5

NANCY HART,
Plaintiff,

6
7
8
9

v.
UNUM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
OF AMERICA,

Case No. 15-cv-05392-TEH
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO
VACATE THE COURT’S JUNE 14,
2017 ORDER

Defendant.
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Hart’s administrative motion (ECF No. 76) to

12

vacate the Court’s June 14, 2017 Order (ECF No. 75). Previously, the Court issued an

13

order vacating Hart’s motion for attorney’s fees, costs, damages, and pre-judgment

14

interest. This was because Hart had failed to include in her motion a declaration that the

15

parties had complied with Civ. L.R. 54-5(a), which requires counsel to “meet and confer

16

for the purpose of resolving all disputed issues relating to attorney’s fees before making a

17

motion for award of attorney’s fees.” After the Court vacated the motion, Hart submitted

18

an administrative motion seeking an order reinstating the motion. In support of her

19

administrative motion, Hart claimed the parties “did meet and confer as required by the

20

local rules,” and that the omission of such a declaration was an inadvertent oversight. ECF

21

No. 76 at 24–27. In response, Defendant Unum opposed the administrative motion

22

claiming that while the parties had been in communications regarding Plaintiff’s attorney

23

fees, the parties had at no time made a good faith attempt to resolve any of the underlying

24

issues. See ECF No. 77. Perhaps more importantly, however, Unum asserted it “remains

25

willing to meet and confer.” Id. at 3:14–15.

26

Thus, the parties are ORDERED to attempt anew to meet and confer in good faith.

27

In the event the parties are unable to resolve all of the issues, Hart may submit a renewed

28

1

motion for attorney fees and costs as to any remaining issues. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s

2

administrative motion is DENIED.

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6
7

Dated: 6/20/2017

_____________________________________
THELTON E. HENDERSON
United States District Judge

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2