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.

Brady v. Conseco

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION


April 24, 2009

CEDRIC BRADY, DR. CHARLES HOVDEN, MARION HOVDEN, DR. EUGENE KREPS, DR. JOHN MCNAMARA, DR. HISAJI SAKAI, AND JEAN SAKAI, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, PLAINTIFFS,
v.
CONSECO, INC. AND CONSECO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Susan Illston

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO ANSWER, MOVE, OR OTHERWISE RESPOND TO THE AMENDED COMPLAINT

WHEREAS on December 24, 2008, plaintiffs Cedric Brady, Dr. Charles Hovden, Marion Hovden, Dr. Eugene Kreps, Dr. John McNamara, Dr. Hisaji Sakai, and Jean Sakai (the "Plaintiffs") filed a Complaint against defendants Conseco, Inc. and Conseco Life Insurance Company (the "Defendants," referred to collectively with the Plaintiffs as the "Parties"), in the San Francisco Division of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (the "Complaint"). On January 9, 2009, Plaintiffsserved asummons and Complaint on each of the Defendants;

WHEREAS on March 6, 2009, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint (Docket No. 32); motion to dismiss was due on or before April 24, 2009 (Docket No. 49). On April 23, 2009, the

WHEREAS pursuant to stipulation and the Court's Order, Plaintiffs' response to the Plaintiffs filed with the Court an Amended Complaint (Docket No. 51); filing of the Amended Complaint; by which Defendants shall be required to answer, move or otherwise respond to the Amended

WHEREAS the Defendants hereby withdraw their motion to dismiss in light of the

WHEREAS Defendants have requested and Plaintiffs have agreed to extend the date Complaint to and including May 29, 2009; undersigned, that, subject to this Court's approval, Defendants shall have to and including May 29,

IT IS THEREFORE STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the 2009, within which to answer, move, or otherwise respond to the Amended Complaint.

ATTESTATION PURSUANT TO GENERAL ORDER 45

I, David S. Clancy, amthe ECFUser whose ID andpasswordarebeingusedtofile this Stipulation And Proposed Order Extending Time To Answer, Move, Or Otherwise Respond To The Amended Complaint. In compliance with General Order 45.X.B, I hereby attest that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from each of the other signatories. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed this 24th day of April 2009, at New York, New York.

David S.Clancy

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION IT IS SO ORDERED,

20090424

© 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.