Sandberg v. Blue Shield of California Life and Health Insurance Company

Filing 39

STIPULATION AND ORDER, Set/Reset Deadlines as to 28 MOTION to Dismiss ; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof. Replies due by 11/23/2012.. Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 11/16/12. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/19/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
KANTOR & KANTOR LLP
19839 Nordhoff Street
Northridge, California 91324
[phone]

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Lisa S. Kantor, Esq. State Bar No. 110678
e-mail: [e-mail]
Elizabeth K. Green, Esq. State Bar No. 199634
e-mail: [e-mail]
KANTOR & KANTOR LLP
19839 Nordhoff Street
Northridge, California 91324
[phone] (Tel)
[phone] (Fax)
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
Garrison L. Sandberg
MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP
GREGORY N. PIMSTONE (Bar No. CA 150203)
E-mail: [e-mail]
CRAIG S. BLOOMGARDEN (Bar No. CA 110241)
E-mail: [e-mail]

11355 West Olympic Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90064-1614
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP
AMY B. BRIGGS (Bar No. CA 194028)
E-mail: [e-mail]
AMANDA M. KNUDSEN (Bar No. CA 252752)
E-mail: [e-mail]
One EmbarcaderoCenter, 30th Floor
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendant
California Physicians’ Service d/b/a Blue Shield Of
California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
) Case No.: CV 12-03026 SBA
)
GARRISON L. SANDBERG,
) JOINT STIPULATION RE
)
Plaintiff,
) PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO
) DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO
vs.
) DISMISS; [PROPOSED] ORDER
)
CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS’
)
SERVICE D/B/A BLUE SHIELD OF
)
CALIFORNIA,
)
)
Defendant.
)

28

JOINT STIPULATION RE PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS; [PROPOSED] ORDER

1

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between Plaintiff, Garrison L.

2

Sandberg, by and through his attorneys of record, Kantor & Kantor LLP, and

3

Defendant California Physicians’ Service d/b/a Blue Shield Of California

4

(“Defendant,” or “Blue Shield”), by and through its attorneys of record, that::

5

1.

On October 9, 2012, Blue Shield filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s

6

second claim for relief in Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint. (ECF

7

No. 28). The hearing on the Motion to Dismiss was noticed for

8

November 16, 2012. At the time, the matter was assigned to the

9

Honorable Charles R. Breyer.

10

2.

matter and requested that the case be reassigned. (ECF No. 31).

11
KANTOR & KANTOR LLP
19839 Nordhoff Street
Northridge, California 91324
[phone]

12

On October 19, 2012, Judge Breyer filed an Order of Recusal in the

3.

On October 19, 2012, the case was reassigned to the Honorable

13

Saundra B. Armstrong. (ECF No. 32). The hearing date for the motion

14

to dismiss was vacated.

15

4.

Plaintiff’s opposition to the motion to dismiss was due on October 23,

16

2012. However, Plaintiff’s counsel’s office incorrectly calendared the

17

responsive deadline for the motion to dismiss when the case was

18

reassigned to Judge Armstrong.

19

5.

On October 30, 2012, Blue Shield re-noticed the hearing on the motion

20

to dismiss for January 22, 2013. (ECF No. 35). Blue Shield filed a

21

reply in support of its Motion to Dismiss as well, noting that Plaintiff

22

had not opposed Blue Shield’s Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 34).

23

6.

Notwithstanding Plaintiff’s failure to file a timely opposition brief and

24

Blue Shield’s position that Plaintiff’s Second Claim for Relief (the only

25

claim at issue in the Motion to Dismiss) fails as a matter of law, Blue

26

Shield agrees that Plaintiff may file an opposition to Blue Shield’s

27

Motion to Dismiss if permitted by the Court to do so.

28
2
JOINT STIPULATION RE PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS; [PROPOSED] ORDER

1

7.

this stipulation.

2
3

8.

Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is lodged
concurrently with this Joint Stipulation.

4
5

The parties further agree that Blue Shield shall not be prejudiced by

9.

The parties agree that Blue Shield may file a reply to Plaintiff’s

6

opposition to the motion to dismiss within 7 days after any Order by

7

this Court permitting Plaintiff to file an Opposition.

8
9

IT IS SO STIPULATED.
Respectfully submitted,

10
11

Dated: November 14, 2012

KANTOR & KANTOR LLP

KANTOR & KANTOR LLP
19839 Nordhoff Street
Northridge, California 91324
[phone]

12
BY:

13
14
15

/s/ Elizabeth K. Green
Elizabeth K. Green
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Garrison L. Sandberg

16
17
18

Dated: November 14, 2012

MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP
BY:

19
20
21

/s/ Amanda M. Knudsen
Amanda M. Knudsen
Attorneys for Defendant
California Physicians’ Service
d/b/a Blue Shield Of California

22
23
24
25

Filer’s Attestation: Pursuant to General Order No. 45, Section X(B) regarding
signatures, Elizabeth K. Green hereby attests that concurrence in the filing of this document
has been obtained.

26
27
28
3
JOINT STIPULATION RE PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS; [PROPOSED] ORDER

[PROPOSED] ORDER

1
2

The Court, having considered the parties’ Joint Stipulation Re Plaintiff’s

3
4

Opposition To Defendant’s Motion To Dismiss, and finding good cause thereon,

5

hereby orders that Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is

6

deemed filed as of the date of this Order. Defendant may file and serve its reply to

7

Plaintiff’s opposition, in accordance with Local Rule 7-3(c), not more than 7 days

8

after the date of this Order permitting Plaintiff to file an Opposition. The parties

9

shall deliver courtesy copies of all motion papers to Judge Armstrong at the

10

Clerk’s Office at the Oakland Courthouse within 14 days of the date this order is

11

filed.

KANTOR & KANTOR LLP
19839 Nordhoff Street
Northridge, California 91324
[phone]

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14

Dated: 11-16-12
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
HON.SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

305537762.2

23
24
25
26
27
28
4
JOINT STIPULATION RE PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS; [PROPOSED] ORDER