Hoffman v. American Society for Techion-Israel Institute of Technology, Inc. et al

Filing 83

ORDER: (1) Granting 79 Ex Parte Application to Strike or Dismiss Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment Against All Defendants on the Life Insurance Benefits; (2) Denying as Untimely Plaintiff's 75 Motion for Summary Judgment Against All Defendants on the Life Insurance Benefits. Signed by Judge Roger T. Benitez on 12/18/2012. (knb)

u
,
1

FILED

2

DEC 18 21]12

3

CLERK, U.S. DISTRI,CT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4

BY

DEPUTY

5

6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

STANLEY HOFFMAN, Individually and on
behalf of the Estate of PHYLLIS
HOFFMAN,

13
14

CASE NO. 09-CV-2482 BEN (KSC)
ORDER:

Plaintiff,

(1) GRANTING EX PARTE
APPLICATION TO STRIKE OR
DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS ON
THE LIFE INSURANCE BENEFITS

vs.

15
16
17
18

19
20

(2) DENYING AS UNTIMELY
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST
ALL DEFENDANTS ON THE LIFE
INSURANCE BENEFITS

AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR TECHNION­
ISREAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,
INC., aka AMERICAN TECHNION
SOCIETY, aka ATS, et ai.,

[Docket Nos. 75, 79]

Defendants.

21
Presently before the Court is Defendant ATS's Ex Parte Application to Strike or Dismiss

22
Plaintifrs Motion for Summary Judgment Against All Defendants on the Life Insurance Benefits.
23
(Docket No. 79.) For good cause shown, the Ex Parte Application is GRANTED. Because Plaintiff
24
did not request modification of the Scheduling Order Regulating Discovery and Other Pretrial
25
Proceedings (Docket No. 52), Plaintifrs Motion for Summary Judgment Against All Defendants on
26
the Life Insurance Benefits (Docket No. 75) is DENIED AS UNTIMELY. See
27

u.s. Dominator v.

Factory Ship Robert E. Resoff, 768 F.2d 1099, 1103-04 (9th Cir. 1985) (where no request to modify
28
the scheduling order has been made, the court may properly deny as untimely a motion filed after the
- 1-

09cv2482

)

1

deadline specified in the scheduling order), superseded by statute on other grounds as recognized in

2

Simpson v. Lear Astronics Corp., 77 F.3d 1170, 1174 (9th Cir. 1996). Plaintiff must request that the

3

Scheduling Order be modified before filing a pretrial motion after the deadline established in the

4

Scheduling Order.

5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
7

DATED:

DeCemb~ 2012

8

9
10
11
12

13

14
15
16

17
18
19

20
21
22

23
24

25

26
27
28

- 2-

09cv2482