Affonso v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company et al

Filing 105

STIPULATION AND ORDER CONTINUING BRIEFING AND HEARING SCHEDULE FOR DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS re 102 Stipulation, filed by Morgan Stanley & Co., Incorporated Basic and Supplemental Life Insurance Plan: 501, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 9/27/11. (nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/27/2011)

1
2
3
4
5

GUY KORNBLUM & ASSOCIATES
WALTER G. CRUMP Bar No. 203743
[e-mail]
1388 Sutter Street, Suite 820
San Francisco, CA 9109
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Gary E. Affonso

6
7
8
9

SEDGWICK LLP
REBECCA A. HULL Bar No. 99802
[e-mail]
One Market Plaza, Steuart Tower, 8th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105-1008
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]

10
11
12
13
14
15
16

Attorneys for Defendants
Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.; Morgan Stanley Benefits Plan
LAW OFFICES OF STEVEN A. ELLENBERG
MARK BOENNIGHAUSEN Bar No. 142147
[e-mail]
4 North Second Street, Suite 1240
San Jose, CA 95113-1308
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
Attorneys for Defendant
Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.

17
18

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

19

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

20
21

GARY E. AFFONSO,
Plaintiff,

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case No. C 10-05054 PJH

v.
METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY; MORGAN STANLEY SMITH
BARNEY LLC (APPEARING AS MORGAN
STANLEY & CO., INC.),; and MORGAN
STANLEY & CO., INCORPORATED, BASIC
AND SUPPLEMENTAL LIFE INSURANCE
PLAN: 501,

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER CONTINUING BRIEFING AND
HEARING SCHEDULE FOR
DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS

Defendants.

SF/2422476v1

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING BRIEFING/HEARING SCHEDULE

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED BY AND BETWEEN THE PARTIES:
Due to plaintiff Gary E. Affonso’s (“plaintiff”) pending motion for reconsideration
regarding abuse of discretion review (ECF No. 96), plaintiff and defendants Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company (“MetLife”), Morgan Stanley Benefits Plan (“Plan”), and Morgan Stanley
& Co., Inc. (“Morgan Stanley”) (collectively “defendants”), hereby respectfully request a
continuance of the briefing and hearing schedule for dispositive motions.
The parties jointly propose the following schedule:
•

9

soon thereafter as is convenient to the Court’s calendar. The parties understand that

10

this hearing date may need to be changed because the proposed briefing schedule

11

below may not allow for the related briefing to be completed in sufficient time prior

12

to the new hearing date. In that instance, the parties will cooperate in selecting a

13
14

The parties’ cross-motions shall be heard on January 11, 2012 at 9:00 a.m., or as

mutually agreeable hearing date.
•

The briefing schedule shall be modified, under the alternative schedules:

15
16

If plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is denied and the standard
of review remains abuse of discretion per the July 6, 2011 Order:

17

•

Defendants shall have 21 days from the date of the Court’s order denying the

18

motion for reconsideration to file their joint cross-motion and opposition to

19

plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment;

20

•

motion and his reply in support of his motion for summary judgment;

21
22

Plaintiff shall then have 21 days to file his opposition to defendants’ cross-

•

Defendants shall then have 14 days to file their joint reply brief.

23
24

If plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is granted, and the standard
of review is changed from abuse of discretion to de novo:

25

•

Plaintiff shall have 21 days from the date of the Court’s order granting the

26

motion for reconsideration to withdraw his currently pending motion for

27

summary judgment (ECF No. 91), and file a new/substituted motion for

28

summary judgment;

SF/2422476v1

2
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING BRIEFING/HEARING SCHEDULE

1

•

2
3

opposition to plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment;
•

4
5

Defendants shall then have 21 days to file their joint cross-motion and

Plaintiff shall then have 21 days to file his opposition to defendants’ crossmotion and reply in support of his motion for summary judgment;

•

Defendants shall then have 14 days to file their joint reply brief.

6
SO STIPULATED AND RESPECTFULLY REQUESTED:
7
DATED: September 26, 2011

GUY KORNBLUM & ASSOCIATES

8
By: /s/ Walter G. Crump (as authorized on 9/26/2011)
Walter G. Crump
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Gary E. Affonso

9
10
11
12

DATED: September 26, 2011

SEDGWICK LLP

13
By: /s/ Rebecca A. Hull
Rebecca A. Hull
Erin A. Cornell
Attorneys for Defendants
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company; Morgan Stanley
Benefits Plan

14
15
16
17
DATED: September 26, 2011

LAW OFFICES OF STEVEN A. ELLENBERG

18
By: /s/ Mark Boennighausen (as authorized on 9/25/2011)
Mark Boennighausen
Attorneys for Defendant
Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.

19
20
21

ORDER

22
23

It is so ordered. The briefing schedule set forth in the parties’ stipulation is adopted, and
the hearing on the cross-motions for judgment shall be held on January 11, 2012 at 9:00 a.m.

25

9/27/11
DATED: __________

SF/2422476v1

3

A

H

ER

hyllis

FO

RT

Judge P

R NIA

HONORABLE PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICTHJUDGE
ton
J. amil
NO

28

ERED

O ORD
IT IS S

LI

27

UNIT
ED

26

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

RT
U
O

S

24

N

F
D IS T IC T O
R

C

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING BRIEFING/HEARING SCHEDULE