UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
September 2, 2008
LYNETTE DUVALL, PLAINTIFF,
RELIANCE STANDARD LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, AND DOES 1 TO 100, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge: Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton
Application to Shorten Time with Order Date: TBA Time: TBA Courtroom 4, 15th Floor
TO: THE COURT, ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
Pursuant to Local Rule 6-144(e), Plaintiff, Lynette Duvall, respectfully requests that the Court shorten time for the hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for Inclusion and Remand.
I, DAVID ALLEN, declare as follows:
1. That I am an attorney at law in good standing and licensed to practice before all Courts of the State of California. I am the attorney of record for Plaintiff LYNETTE DUVALL.
2. That if called as a witness, I would and could competently testify to all facts within my personal knowledge, except where stated upon information and belief.
3. This case arises from denial of long term disability benefits by Defendant Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company. Essentially, 9th Circuit case law confines the decision in this case to the information contained in the claims file, or administrative record, developed by Reliance. Plaintiff is bringing this Motion seeking inclusion in the record of a diagnosis recently made by the University of California Davis Medical Center which provides insight as to the information contained in the claims file, or administrative record. Inclusion or exclusion of the diagnosis will produce a profound impact on the Motions the Court ordered be filed by October 10, 2008. Therefore it is important in developing the October 10, 2008 Motions the parties know as soon as possible whether the information offered by Plaintiff is included in the administrative record.
4. Plaintiff requests hearing on her Motion for Inclusion attached as Exhibit 1 and served upon Defendants be conducted September 22, 2008.
5. Plaintiff was unable to file her Motion for Inclusion earlier because the diagnosis which explains much of the information in the administrative record was only recently made and due to the unavailability of the declarant supporting the motion.
6. Normal calendaring of Plaintiff's Motion for Inclusion, according to the hearing dates available on the court's calendar, would delay a hearing until October 6, 2008.
7. Rule 52 , Judgment Motions or Rule 56, Summary Judgment Motions are to be filed with the court October 10, 2008.
8. The result of Plaintiff's Motion for Inclusion will have significant bearing on the information the Motions will rely on and in the manner in which they will be written.
9. An Order Shortening Time would allow for a hearing on September 22, 2008 at 10:00 a.m. The Opposition would be due by 10:00 a.m. September 15, 2008 and the Reply would be due by 5:00 p.m. September 17, 2008.
10. On August 26, 2008 I spoke with Keiko Kojima, counsel for defendant by telephone and asked her to stipulate to the Motion for Inclusion being brought on an Order Shortening Time. She said she would need to speak to her client to obtain permission. She called back today, . August 29, 2008 at 2:20 p.m. to report she had received no response from her client and was therefore unable to stipulate.
I declare under penalty of perjury pursuant to the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed this 29th day of August, 2008, at Sacramento, California.
Application having been made by Plaintiff and Plaintiff's attorney to shorten time to hear Plaintiff's Motion for Inclusion,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs' application to shorten time to hear Plaintiff's Motion for Inclusion is Granted.
The Hearing date will be September 22, 2008 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 4. Defendant's Opposition to be filed by September 15, 2008 at 10:00 a.m.
Plaintiff's Reply to be filed by September 17, 2008 at 5:00 p.m.
The Court will issue its ruling upon Plaintiff's Motion for Inclusion on or before October 1, 2008.
© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.