Brown v. Boeing Company

Filing 81

ORDER granting Parties' 80 Stipulated Motion to Extend Deadlines on Remand. The Parties are directed to file a joint status report no later than January 3, 2020. Signed by Judge Ricardo S. Martinez. (PM)

Download PDF
The Honorable Ricardo S. Martinez 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 8 9 ARLENE M. BROWN, NO. C17-1354-RSM 10 11 12 13 Plaintiff, v. THE BOEING COMPANY and EMPLOYEE BENEFIT PLANS COMMITTEE, Defendants. 14 15 16 STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DEADLINES ON REMAND STIPULATED MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLINES ON REMAND The Parties hereby file this stipulated motion pursuant to LCR 7(d)(1) and 10(g) to 17 request that the Court extend the deadlines previously set for the remand of Plaintiff’s claim for 18 benefits to Defendant the Employee Benefit Plans Committee (“Committee”). The Parties 19 respectfully submit that good cause exists to extend the deadlines on remand while the Parties 20 explore alternate methods of resolving this matter. In support of their Stipulated Motion, the 21 Parties state as follows: 22 23 1. On June 3, 2019, the Parties made a Stipulated Motion to Stay Case Pending Remand to Employee Benefit Plans Committee. ECF 76. The Parties therein agreed that, within STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DEADLINES ON REMAND TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC 1700 Seventh Avenue, Suite 2200 Seattle, Washington 98101 TEL. 206.682.5600  FAX 206.682.2992 1 105 days of the Court entering an order staying the federal court proceedings in this matter, 2 “Plaintiff (through her counsel) shall . . . submit any comments, documents, records, or other 3 information she so chooses to the Committee for its review.” ECF 76 at 2–3. The Parties further 4 agreed that the Committee would “then have 60 days to render its determination on Plaintiff’s 5 claim, which may be extended an additional 60 days pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 2560.503- 6 1(i)(1)(i).” Id. at 3. 7 2. The Court entered an order granting the Parties’ Stipulated Motion to Stay Case 8 Pending Remand to Employee Benefit Plans Committee on June 4, 2019. ECF 77. The Court 9 directed the Parties to file a joint status report within 180 days of entry of the order. Id. The 10 proceedings in this matter have therefore been stayed pending a remand to the Employee 11 Benefit Plans Committee of Plaintiff’s administrative claim. 12 3. Plaintiff’s initial deadline to submit any comments, documents, records, or other 13 information to the Committee for its review was September 17, 2019. The Parties agreed and 14 stipulated that good cause existed to extend that deadline, and on September 16, 2019, they 15 made a stipulated motion to extend those deadlines on remand. See ECF 78. The Court granted 16 the Motion, see ECF 79, and Plaintiff’s deadline to provide materials to the Employee Benefit 17 Plans Committee for Review is October 17, 2019. 18 4. The Parties hereby stipulate and agree that good cause exists to extend 19 Plaintiff’s October 17, 2019 deadline to provide materials to the Employee Benefit Plans 20 Committee by one more month. The Parties therefore stipulate to extend that deadline to 21 November 18, 2019. 22 23 4. The Parties further agree that the Committee will then have 60 days to render its determination on Plaintiff’s claim, which may be extended an additional 60 days pursuant to STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DEADLINES ON REMAND TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC 1700 Seventh Avenue, Suite 2200 Seattle, Washington 98101 TEL. 206.682.5600  FAX 206.682.2992 1 29 C.F.R. § 2560.503-1(i)(1)(i). 5. 2 The Parties have been ordered to file a joint status report no later than January 3, 3 2020, see ECF 79, and they respectfully propose that their status report deadline remain the 4 same. 5 6 WHEREFORE, the Parties jointly ask the Court to extend the Parties’ deadlines on remand as set forth above. 7 IT IS SO STIPULATED. 8 DATED this 11th day of October, 2019. 9 11 12 13 By: Hillary E. August MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP Deborah S. Davidson (pro hac vice) Hillary E. August (pro hac vice) 77 West Wacker Drive Chicago, Illinois 60601 Tel.: 312.324.1000 Fax: 312.324.1001 deborah.davidson@morganlewis.com hillary.august@morganlewis.com Attorneys for Plaintiff 10 By: s/Kaleigh N. Powell TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC Chase C. Alvord, WSBA # 26080 Kaleigh N. Powell, WSBA # 52684 1700 Seventh Avenue, Suite 2200 Seattle, Washington 98101 Tel.: 206.682.5600 Fax: 206.682.2992 calvord@tousley.com kpowell@tousley.com By: Laurence A. Shapero OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. Laurence A. Shapero, WSBA #31301 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 5150 Seattle, WA 98101 Tel.: 206.876.5301 Fax: 206.693.7058 laurence.shapero@ogletree.com 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Attorneys for Defendants The Boeing Company and The Boeing Company Employee Benefit Plans Committee 21 22 23 STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DEADLINES ON REMAND TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC 1700 Seventh Avenue, Suite 2200 Seattle, Washington 98101 TEL. 206.682.5600  FAX 206.682.2992 ORDER 1 2 3 4 5 The Court hereby grants the Parties’ Stipulated Motion to Extend Deadlines on Remand. The Parties are directed to file a joint status report no later than January 3, 2020. IT IS SO ORDERED this 16 day of October, 2019. A 6 RICARDO S. MARTINEZ CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 7 8 Presented by: 9 TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC 10 11 s/Kaleigh N. Powell Chase C. Alvord, WSBA # 26080 Kaleigh N. Powell, WSBA # 52684 12 Attorneys for Plaintiff 13 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 14 15 Hillary E. August Deborah S. Davidson (pro hac vice) Hillary E. August (pro hac vice) 16 17 18 OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. Laurence A. Shapero Laurence A. Shapero, WSBA #31301 19 20 Attorneys for Defendants The Boeing Company and The Boeing Company Employee Benefit Plans Committee 21 22 23 STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DEADLINES ON REMAND TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC 1700 Seventh Avenue, Suite 2200 Seattle, Washington 98101 TEL. 206.682.5600  FAX 206.682.2992

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?