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.

American General Life Insurance Company v. Razmik Khachatourians

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


June 18, 2012

AMERICAN GENERAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, PLAINTIFF,
v.
RAZMIK KHACHATOURIANS, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS A PRINCIPAL OF LIGHTHOUSE INSURANCE MARKETING, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dean D. Pregerson United States District Judge

O

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A FIRST AMENDED ANSWER AND VACATED THE MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE THREE RELATED CASES AS MOOT [Docket Nos. 127, 128]

Presently before the court are Defendant Brian A. Manson's: 1) Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Answer to the First Amended Complaint ("Motion to Amend"); and 2) Motion to Consolidate Three Related Cases ("Motion to Consolidate").

Plaintiff National Financial Partners Corp. is the sole remaining plaintiff in this action. As of the date of this Order, Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to either Motion, or any other filing that could be construed as a request for a continuance. Further, Defendant has submitted a Declaration indicating that Plaintiff informed Defendant that it would not oppose the Motion to Amend. In Defendant's Notice of Motion to Consolidate, Defendant also states that Plaintiff had previously agreed to stipulate to consolidation.

Central District of California Local Rule 7-9 requires an opposing party to file an opposition to any motion at least twenty-one (21) days prior to the date designated for hearing the motion. Additionally, Local Rule 7-12 provides that "[t]he failure to file any required document, or the failure to file it within the deadline, may be deemed consent to the granting or denial of the motion." The hearings on Defendant's Motions were set for May 21, 2012. Any opposition was therefore due by April 30, 2012.

Accordingly, pursuant to Local Rule 7-12 and in light of Defendant's representations that Plaintiff does not oppose either Motion, the court deems Plaintiff's failure to oppose as consent to granting the Motions. The court therefore GRANTS Defendant's Motion to Amend. The Court notes the three cases already have the same trial dates and vacates the Motion to Consolidate as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20120618

© 1992-2012 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.