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


August 10, 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.

STIPULATION EXTENDING TIME TO ANSWER 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,"), 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, Plaintiffs filed with the Court an Amended Complaint (Docket No. 51);

WHEREAS on May 29, 2009, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint (Docket No. 58);

WHEREAS on June 20, 2009, Plaintiffs opposed Defendants' motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint (Docket No. 61);

WHEREAS on July 29, 2009, this Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants' motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint (Docket No. 64), which, in part, dismissed this action against Conseco, Inc. for lack of personal jurisdiction;

WHEREAS Conseco Life Insurance Company ("Conseco Life") has requested and Plaintiffs have agreed to extend the date by which Conseco Life shall be required to answer or otherwise respond to the Amended Complaint from August 12, 2009 to and including August 19, 2009 (a one week extension);

WHEREAS this additional one week will not impact other events and/or Deadlines in this action;

IT IS THEREFORE STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the undersigned, that Conseco Life shall have to and including August 19, 2009, within which to answer or otherwise respond to the Amended Complaint.

IT IS SO ORDERED

Millstein & Associates

DATED: August 7, 2009

David J. Millstein Attorneys for Plaintiffs

DATED: August 7, 2009

Gilbert Oshinksy LLP

August J. Matteis, Jr. Attorneys for Plaintiffs

DATED: August 7, 2009

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP

David S. Clancy

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 Defendant Conseco Life Insurance Company

ATTESTATION PURSUANT TO GENERAL ORDER 45

I, David S. Clancy, amtheECFUser whoseIDand passwordarebeingusedtofile this Stipulation Extending Time To Answer 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 7th day of August 2009, at New York, New York.

David S.Clancy

20090810

© 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.