Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_03-cv-05376/USCOURTS-cand-4_03-cv-05376-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Insurance Contract

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND

GUARANTY COMPANY, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

THE SCOTT COMPANIES, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

No. C-03-5376 SBA (EMC)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE AND

EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND

TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTIONS FOR

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND

JUDGMENT

(Docket No. 235)

Defendants have filed a motion for a continuance and extension of time to respond to

Plaintiffs’ motions for injunctive relief and judgment. As Plaintiffs point out, it appears Defendants

believe that both a motion for injunctive relief and a motion for judgment are set for November 8,

2006. However, in its previous order, the Court only set a hearing on Plaintiffs’ request for a

preliminary injunction.

In their papers, Plaintiffs state that they have no objection to a continuance and extension of

time if both motions are at issue and so long as the TRO to which the parties had previously

stipulated remains in place. Defendants did not object to this proposal in their reply brief. 

Accordingly, the Court hereby GRANTS Defendants’ motion upon the following terms.

First, both Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction and motion for judgment shall be

heard on December 6, 2006, at 10:30 a.m. Defendants’ opposition shall be filed by November 15,

2006, and Plaintiffs’ reply by November 22, 2006. Courtesy copies shall be provided to chambers

by 4:00 p.m. on those dates.

Case 4:03-cv-05376-SBA Document 241 Filed 10/25/06 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Second, the TRO to which the parties had previously stipulated shall remain in place until

the date of the hearing on the motions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 25, 2006

 EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:03-cv-05376-SBA Document 241 Filed 10/25/06 Page 2 of 2