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


May 6, 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 ESTABLISHING BRIEFING SCHEDULE AND CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

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, Plaintiffs served a summons and Complaint on each of the Defendants;

WHEREAS on April 23, 2009, the Plaintiffs filed with the Court an Amended Complaint (Docket No. 51);

WHEREAS on April 24, 2009, the Parties filed with the Court a Stipulation Extending Time To Answer, Move, Or Otherwise Respond To The Amended Complaint (Docket No. 52) requesting that the date by which Defendants must answer, move, or otherwise respond to the Complaint be extended to and including May 29, 2009, and the Court granted such relief by Order dated April 29, 2009 (Docket No. 54); by which Plaintiffs shall be required to oppose any motion, including a motion to dismiss, brought by Defendants in response to the Amended Complaint to and including June 30, 2009; by which Defendants may reply in further support of any motion, including a motion to dismiss, brought by Defendants in response to the Amended Complaint to and including July 17, 2009; including a motion to dismiss, brought by Defendants in response to the Amended Complaint may be noticed to be heard by the Court consistent with the above schedule is July 31, 2009, or such other date that the Court finds suitable; and judicial economy would be best served if the Case Management Conference currently scheduled for May 15, 2009 shall also be held on July 31, 2009, or such other date that the Court finds suitable;

WHEREAS Plaintiffs have requested and Defendants have agreed to extend the date

WHEREAS Defendants have requested and Plaintiffs have agreed to extend the date

WHEREAS the Parties have conferred and agree that the earliest date a motion,

WHEREAS the Parties have conferred and agree that the interests of the Parties and

IT IS THEREFORE STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the undersigned, that, subject to this Court's approval, Plaintiffs shall have to and including June 30, 2009, within which to oppose any motion, including a motion to dismiss, brought by Defendants in response to the Amended Complaint and Defendants' reply thereto, if any, shall be filed no later than July 17, 2009.

IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the undersigned, that, subject to this Court's approval, a hearing on any motion, including a motion to dismiss, brought by Defendants in response to the Amended Complaint shall be held July 31, 2009, or as soon thereafter as Defendants may be heard.

IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the undersigned, that, subject to this Court's approval, the Case Management Conference currently scheduled for May 15, 2009 shall be held on July 31, 2009, or as soon thereafter as is convenient for the Court.

ACCORDINGLY, subject to this Court's approval, the briefing and Case Management Conference schedule shall be as follows:

June 30, 2009 Last day for Plaintiffs to oppose any motion, including a motion to dismiss, brought by Defendants in response to the Amended Complaint

July 17, 2009 Last day that Defendants may reply in further support of any such motion

July 31, 2009 AT 9 A.M. Hearing on any such motion

July 31, 2009 AT 2:30 P.M. Case Management Conference

DATED: May 6, 2009

Millstein & Associates By: David J. Millstein Attorneys for Plaintiffs

DATED: May 6, 2009

Gilbert Oshinksy LLP By: August J. Matteis, Jr. Attorneys for Plaintiffs

DATED: May 6, 2009

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP By: Raoul D. Kennedy James R. Carroll (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) David S. Clancy (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) Cale P. Keable (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) Attorneys for Defendants Conseco, Inc. and Conseco Life Insurance Company

ATTESTATION PURSUANT TO GENERAL ORDER 45

I, DavidS. Clancy, amtheECFUser whoseIDand passwordarebeingusedtofile this Stipulation And Proposed Order Establishing Briefing Schedule And Case Management Conference. 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 6th day of May 2009, at Boston, Massachusetts.

By: David S. Clancy

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION IT IS SO ORDERED,

20090506

© 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.