Phipps v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company

Filing 48

ORDER by Judge ARMSTRONG denying 41 Ex Parte Application (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/31/2012)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
3

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
4

OAKLAND DIVISION
5
6 LONNIE PHIPPS,

Plaintiff,

7
8

Case No: C 11-02151 SBA
ORDER
Docket 41.

vs.

9 RELIANCE LIFE INSURANCE
10

COMPANY,
Defendant.

11
12

On May 18, 2012, Defendant Reliance Life Insurance Company ("Defendant") filed

13

an ex parte application requesting a June 1, 2012 hearing date for its motion to modify the

14

scheduling order ("Application"). Dkt. 41. Plaintiff Lonnie Phipps ("Plaintiff") opposes

15

the Application. Dkt. 43. The Court construes Defendant's Application as a request for an

16

order shortening time.1 Under the Local Rules of this District, a party seeking to have a

17

motion heard on shortened time must submit a declaration that, among other things,

18

"[i]dentifies the substantial harm or prejudice that would occur if the Court did not change

19

the time." See Civil L.R. 6-3(a)(3). Here, Defendant's Application is not accompanied by a

20

declaration that complies with the requirements of Local Rule 6-3. Accordingly,

21

Defendant's Application is DENIED. This Order terminates Docket 41.

22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 5/31/12

24

______________________________
SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG
United States District Judge

25
1

The Court notes that the correct procedure for seeking relief on less than the 35
days notice proscribed by Local Rule 7-1(a)(1) is to accompany the motion seeking
27 substantive relief with a motion to shorten time brought under Local Rule 6-3 (or, where
the parties are in agreement as to the need to shorten time, a stipulation under Local Rule 628 2).
26

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
-2-