Storrer v. Paul Revere Life Ins

Filing 252

ORDER by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong, DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 241 Motion for Summary Judgment; DENYING AS MOOT 246 Motion for Filing of Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendant to renew motion by 04/07/09; Plaintiff's Opposition due 04/21/09; Reply due 04/28/09. The hearing on renewed motion set for 05/19/09 at 1:00 PM (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/20/2009) Modified on 3/23/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). Modified on 3/23/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF).

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 P. PAUL STORRER, 7 8 vs. Plaintiff, Case No: C 97-04014 SBA ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT WITHOUT PREJUDICE [Docket 64, 241] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION 9 THE PAUL REVERE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Massachusetts corporation, 10 Defendant. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 This diversity jurisdiction insurance bad faith previously was assigned to the Honorable Martin J. Jenkins of this Court. On January 4, 2000, Defendant's filed a motion for summary judgment (Docket 64), which Judge Jenkins granted. Plaintiff appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which on February 5, 2007, affirmed in part and reversed in part. Specifically, the court of appeal reversed summary judgment as to Plaintiff's bad faith claim and remanded for a determination on his claim for punitive damages. Upon remand, the case was reassigned to this Court. On February 19, 2009, Defendant filed a Notice of Motion and Motion for Partial Summary Judgment by the Paul Revere Life Insurance Company. (Docket 241.) However, Defendant did not accompany its motion with a memorandum of points and authorities. Instead, Defendant indicated that "[t]his motion is based on ... the Memorandum of Points and Authorities filed herein on January 4, 2000 (Docket No. 64)...." (Id. at 2, emphasis added.) Defendant's attempt to base its renewed motion on a nine year-old, 24-page memorandum that was presented to another judge is improper. (Local Rule 7-2(b), 7-4.) It is not the Court's obligation to parse through Defendant's previously-filed papers to ascertain which facts, argument and evidence are germane, versus those which are not. Accordingly, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Docket 64, 241) is DENIED without prejudice. In the event that Defendant desires to renew its motion, it shall do so by filing its motion papers (including a supporting memorandum and evidence) by April 7, 2009. Opposition papers shall be filed by April 21, 2009 and any reply shall be filed by April 28, 2009. Since the issues have been narrowed as a result of the Ninth Circuit's decision, the moving and opposition briefs shall be limited to ten (10) pages, and the reply shall be limited to five (5) pages. The hearing on the renewed motion is scheduled for May 19, 2009 at 1:00 p.m. The parties shall file a joint case management statement at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing. The case management conference will follow the hearing on the motion. In the event the Court determines that no argument on the motion is required, the Clerk will notify the parties in advance of the hearing that no appearance is required. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 19, 2009 ____________________________ Hon. Saundra Brown Armstrong United States District Judge -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?