Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Multifamily Captive Group, LLC v. Assurance Risk Managers

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


February 27, 2009

MULTIFAMILY CAPTIVE GROUP, LLC, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS,
v.
ASSURANCE RISK MANAGERS, INC., ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

ORDER

This case came before the court on February 27, 2009, for hearing of the February 18, 2009 motion for protective order and sanctions brought by defendant California Apartment Association (CAA) and of the February 26, 2009 motion for protective order and sanctions brought by defendants Assurance Risk Managers, Inc. (ARM) and Lisa Isom. Both motions were heard pursuant to orders shortening time. Avraham N. Wagner, Esq. appeared for plaintiffs. Servando R. Sandoval, Esq. appeared for defendant CAA, and Curtis R. Henry, Esq. appeared for defendants ARM and Isom. All counsel appeared telephonically.

The court gave careful consideration to the parties' filings regarding the two motions, the arguments of counsel at the hearing, and the entire court file. For the reasons set forth on the record, defendants' motions were granted in part.

IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Defendant CAA's February 18, 2009 motion for protective order and for sanctions (Doc. No. 80) is granted in part as to the protective order and denied as to sanctions; the depositions of defendant CAA's representatives shall be taken in Sacramento under the cost-splitting agreement reached by the parties;

2. The ex parte application for protective order (Doc. No. 87) filed by defendants ARM and Isom on February 26, 2009 is denied and their application in the alternative for order shortening time is granted, with the motion to be heard on February 27, 2009, concurrently with defendant CAA's motion;

3. Defendants ARM and Isom's February 26, 2009 motion for protective order and for sanctions (Doc. No. 87) is granted in part as to the protective order and denied as to sanctions; the depositions of defendants ARM and Isom shall be taken in Denver under the cost-splitting agreement reached by the parties; and

4. Depositions shall be taken on a schedule that will allow plaintiffs to file timely opposition to defendant CAA's pending motion for summary judgment.

20090227

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.