Hart v. Unum Life Insurance Company of America et al

Filing 96

ORDER GRANTING 94 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME by Hon. William Alsup. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/23/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 NANCY HART, 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 No. C 15-05392 WHA Plaintiff, v. UNUM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, CATHOLIC HEALTHCARE WEST LONG TERM DISABILITY PLAN, and CATHOLIC HEALTHCARE WEST PENSION PLAN, ORDER GRANTING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME Defendants. / 18 In this ERISA action, plaintiff Nancy Hart stipulated to dismiss defendants Catholic 19 Healthcare West Long Term Disability Plan and Catholic Healthcare West Pension Plan in 20 April and November of 2016, respectively (Dkt. Nos. 26, 40). This action then proceeded 21 solely against defendant Unum Life Insurance Company of America. On May 24 of this year, 22 Judge Thelton Henderson, the then-presiding judge, entered judgment in favor of Hart and 23 against Unum (Dkt. No. 65). Unum appealed (Dkt. No. 79). Hart moved for attorney’s fees 24 and costs plus prejudgment interest (Dkt. No. 80). After full briefing but before the hearing on 25 Hart’s motion (originally scheduled for August 14), this action was reassigned to the 26 undersigned judge due to Judge Henderson’s retirement (Dkt. No. 93). Instead of re-noticing 27 her motion for fees and interest, Hart filed an administrative motion to have it heard on an 28 expedited basis or, in the alternative, submitted without oral argument (Dkt. No. 94). 1 Unum opposes the administrative motion on the bases that (1) Hart failed to comply 2 with Civil Local Rule 6-3 because she never attempted to obtain a stipulation to shorten time, 3 did not submit a declaration with her administrative motion, and identified no substantial harm 4 or prejudice that would occur without the requested relief; and (2) oral argument is necessary to 5 address new issues raised for the first time in Hart’s reply brief (Dkt. No. 95). Both points are 6 well-taken. Unum also states, however, that it does not actually oppose an “earlier” hearing 7 date on September 21 or 28 (id. at 2–3). And while Hart’s administrative motion seems to 8 request a hearing date within 35 days, it also proposes dates all the way through October of this 9 year, including September 21 and 28 (Dkt. No. 94 at 2). This order therefore sets Hart’s motion for fees and interest (Dkt. No. 80) for hearing on SEPTEMBER 21 AT 8:00 A.M. Hart’s 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 administrative motion is GRANTED only to the extent stated herein. 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 15 Dated: August 23, 2017. WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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?