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)

Download PDF
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

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?