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)

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