United States District Court, N.D. California
February 4, 2014
PEDRO ARROYO, Plaintiff(s),
UNIGARD INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants.
John R. Brydon, Jeffrey Kaufman, BRYDON HUGO & PARKER, San Francisco, CA, Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant, UNIGARD INSURANCE COMPANY.
APPLICATION FOR ORDER ALLOWING 30 PAGE BRIEF; DECLARATION OF JEFFREY KAUFMAN IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION; AND PROPOSED ORDER
JEFFREY WHITE, District Judge.
Pursuant to Rule 7-4(b), U.S.D.C. Northern District Civil Local Rules, defendant Unigard Insurance Company files this unopposed application for leave to file a 30 page combined brief which includes Defendant's opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as well as Defendant's Counter-Motion for Summary Judgment, or, in the Alternative, for Partial Summary Judgment. Plaintiff does not oppose this Application.
This application is based on the Declaration of Jeffrey Kaufman below, and is made for good cause, as the motions raise many issues in this multi-million dollar dispute, and Defendant is combining two briefs each of which could be 25 pages long under the applicable rules.
Defendant respectfully requests that this application be granted.
DECLARATION OF JEFFREY KAUFMAN IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION
I, Jeffrey Kaufman, declare:
1. I am an attorney at law, duly licensed to practice before all of the Courts of the State of California, and this Court, and am Of Counsel to the law firm of Brydon Hugo & Parker, attorneys for Defendant Unigard Insurance Company. Unless otherwise indicated, I have personal knowledge of the facts stated in this declaration.
2. This is an insurance coverage action in which Plaintiff seeks to recover over $7.2 million from Defendant and seeks to foreclose Defendant from raising any of its coverage defenses.
3. The Court established a schedule for the parties to file cross-motions for summary judgment or partial summary judgment. Plaintiff filed his motion. Defendant's opposition to Plaintiff's motion as well as Defendant's counter-motion are due on January 31, 2014. The Court ordered that Defendant file one brief combining both its opposition and its counter-motion.
4. If Defendant filed separate briefs opposing Plaintiff's motion and presenting its own motion, the rules would allow 25 pages for each such brief. Rule 7-4(b), U.S.D.C. Northern District Civil Local Rules.
5. There are many issues raised in the motions which need to be addressed. These include, among others, issues relating to the terms and conditions of the policies, the application of multiple exclusions, and the effect of a default judgment entered against Plaintiff's assignor in a state court action. Attempting to address all these issues in one 25 page brief would not allow the full and fair treatment of all them. Allowing 5 extra pages will permit Defendant to file a more complete and useful brief for the Court
6. Plaintiff's counsel has informed me that he has no objection to this Application.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct, and that this Declaration was executed on January 29, 2014, at San Francisco, California.
GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Defendant Unigard Insurance Company is granted leave to file a 30 page brief combining its opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as well as its Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, or, in the Alternative, Partial Summary Judgment.