Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Linda Reynoso v. At&T Mobility Services

September 13, 2011

LINDA REYNOSO,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
AT&T MOBILITY SERVICES, LLC;
SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.;
AT&T UMBRELLA PLAN NO. 1 AND DOES 2 THROUGH 50, INCLUSIVE,
DEFENDANT(S).



The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Honorable John A. Mendez United States District Judge

Katherine L. Kettler (SBN 231586) klk@millerlawgroup.com 2 Jennifer A. Shy (SBN 131074) jas@millerlawgroup.com 3 Lindsay E. Hutner (SBN 238998) leh@millerlawgroup.com 4 MILLER LAW GROUP A Professional Corporation 5 111 Sutter Street, Suite 700 San Francisco, CA 94104 6 Tel. (415) 464-4300 Fax (415) 464-4336 7 Attorneys for Defendants 8 AT&T MOBILITY SERVICES LLC and AT&T UMBRELLA BENEFIT PLAN NO. 1 9 (erroneously sued herein as "AT&T UMBRELLA PLAN NO. 1") Christopher C. Phillips (SBN 257758) cphillips@bowmanandassoc.com THE LAW OFFICE OF BOWMAN & ASSOCIATES A Professional Corporation 193 Blue Ravine Road, Suite 180 Folsom, CA 95630 Tel. (916) 985-2600 Fax (916) 985-2626 Attorneys for Plaintiff LINDA REYNOSO

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE SCHEDULE FOR DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY ADJUDICATION AND ORDER

Complaint filed: July 16, 2010

First Amend. Complaint filed: Aug. 24, 2010

1. The parties, Plaintiff LINDA REYNOSO ("Plaintiff") and Defendants AT&T UMBRELLA BENEFIT PLAN NO. 1 ("Plan") and AT&T MOBILITY SERVICES, LLC 3 ("Mobility") (collectively, "Defendants") by and through their undersigned attorneys, hereby 4 stipulate to continue the schedule for each of the Defendants' Motion for Summary 5 Judgment or In the Alternative, Summary Adjudication that are currently set forth in the 6 Court's Minute Order dated February 2, 2011. [See Docket No. 12]

2. In her First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Plan 9 violated ERISA section 502(a)(1)(B) by arbitrarily denying her claim for short-term disability benefits. Separate from her claims against Defendant Plan, Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant Mobility wrongfully terminated her employment because she appealed the denial of short-term disability benefits under the Plan. Plaintiff further alleges Defendant Mobility's conduct constituted a breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and that it was unjustly enriched at Plaintiff's expense.

3. On October 22, 2010, the parties filed a Joint Status Report. [Docket No. 8] The Joint Status Report stated that Defendants anticipated filing two Motions for Summary Judgment -- one on behalf of Defendant Plan and another on behalf of Defendant Mobility -- as the Causes of Action in Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint are clearly delineated between the two parties. [Id.]

4. On February 2, 2011, and pursuant to the parties' Joint Status Report, the Court entered a Minute Order setting the following motions schedule: Defendant Plan's Motion for Summary Judgment shall be filed on or before September 7, 2011, and noticed for hearing on October 5, 2011; Defendant Mobility's Motion for Summary Judgment shall be filed on or before November 9, 2011, and noticed for hearing on December 7, 2011. [See Docket No. 12]

5. Pursuant to the Court's February 2, 2011 Minute Order, Defendant Plan 2 filed its Motion for Summary Judgment on September 7, 2011, and noticed it for hearing on 3 October 5, 2011. [See Docket Nos. 18-23]

6. Since the filing of Defendant Plan's Motion for Summary Judgment or in 6 the Alternative Motion for Summary Adjudication, the parties agreed to attend private 7 mediation in an effort to resolve Plaintiff's claims against both Defendants. The mediation is 8 currently, scheduled for November 7, 2011. 9

7. Because the parties have agreed to devote their energies to attempting to resolve this matter without further assistance from the Court, they do not wish to burden the Court or expend potentially unnecessary resources in preparing briefing for the Defendants' respective Motions for Summary Judgment or In the Alternative Summary Adjudication as currently scheduled by the Court.

8. However, if the matter is not resolved pursuant to the parties' mediation, the parties wish to have sufficient time to prepare their respective briefings for the two Motions for Summary Judgment or In the Alternative Summary Adjudication.

9. IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between Plaintiff and Defendants, by and through their respective undersigned attorneys of record, to continue to dates set for hearings on the Defendants' respective Motions for Summary Judgment or In the Alternative Summary Adjudication, as well as all associated deadlines, including the deadlines for the filing of the Plaintiff's oppositions and Defendants' respective reply briefs, as follows:

For Defendant Plan's pending Motion for Summary Judgment: 2 3 December 7, 2011 Last court day for Plaintiff to file and serve opposition to Defendant Plan's Motion for 4 Summary ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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