The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dennis L. Beck United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION ON COURT'S ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ON THE COURT'S ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT (Document 70)
Plaintiff Keith Warkentin ("Plaintiff") filed the instant motion for (1) clarification of the Court's orders denying Plaintiff's motion to strike and granting Defendant Federated Life Insurance Company's motion for summary judgment; and (2) reconsideration on the Court's order granting Defendant Federated Life Insurance Company's motion for summary judgment and judgment. The Court deemed the matter suitable for decision without oral argument pursuant to Local Rule 230(g), and vacated the hearing scheduled for May 25, 2012.
Plaintiff Keith Warkentin ("Plaintiff") filed this action on December 22, 2009, in Merced County Superior Court claiming that Defendant Federated Life Insurance Company ("Federated") unreasonably denied him benefits under two disability insurance policies.
Federated removed the action to this Court on February 10, 2010, and filed an answer.
On January 18, 2012, pursuant to a stipulation by the parties, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint ("FAC") regarding denial of benefits under a single disability income insurance policy issued by Federated on September 8, 2005. Federated filed an answer to the FAC, along with a counterclaim, on January 31, 2012.
On February 14, 2012, Federated filed a motion for summary judgment. On February 21, 2012, Plaintiff filed an answer to the counterclaim, along with a motion to strike certain affirmative defenses and the counterclaim.
On March 16, 2012, Federated filed a reply to its motion for summary judgment. Federated pointed out that Plaintiff had failed to file any opposition to the motion. Doc. 56.
On March 22, 2012, at approximately 7:33 p.m., on the eve before the summary judgment motion hearing, Plaintiff filed his purported opposition. Docs. 57-59. The opposition was not timely pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and Rule 230 of the Local Rules of the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Given this failure, Plaintiff was not entitled to be heard in opposition to the motion at oral argument. Local Rule 230(c).
On March 23, 2012, the Court held a hearing on Federated's motion for summary judgment and Plaintiff's motion to strike affirmative defenses and counterclaim. Counsel for both parties appeared at the hearing and participated in oral argument.
On March 26, 2012, the Court denied Plaintiff's motion to strike Federated's affirmative defenses and counterclaim.
On March 28, 2012, the Court granted Federated's Motion for Summary Judgment, and the Clerk of the Court entered judgment for Federated.
On April 11, 2012, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for clarification of the Court's orders and reconsideration of the Court's order granting summary judgment. Federated opposed the motion on April 16, 2012. Plaintiff filed ...