Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04693/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04693-13/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Employment Discrimination

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AIMEE SHEMANO-KRUPP,

Plaintiff,

 v.

MUTUAL OF OMAHA INSURANCE

COMPANY, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 05-04693 JSW

NOTICE OF QUESTIONS RE

MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE

NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS FOR THE HEARING SCHEDULED ON

NOVEMBER 30, 2007 AT 9:00 A.M.:

The Court has reviewed the parties’ papers and, thus, does not wish to hear the parties

reargue matters addressed in those pleadings. If the parties intend to rely on authorities not

cited in their briefs, they are ORDERED to notify the Court and opposing counsel of these

authorities reasonably in advance of the hearing and to make copies available at the hearing. If

the parties submit such additional authorities, they are ORDERED to submit the citations to the

authorities only, without argument or additional briefing. Cf. N.D. Civil Local Rule 7-3(d). 

The parties will be given the opportunity at oral argument to explain their reliance on such

authority.

Case 3:05-cv-04693-JSW Document 98 Filed 11/30/07 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

The parties shall have 10 minutes to address the following questions:

1. What is the relevant time frame for the ERISA preemption analysis: is it the time

of Mr. Shemano’s death or the time of Mr. Benard’s alleged representations

regarding the policy’s conversion provisions? What authority supports either

party’s assessment of the relevant time frame?

2. Do the parties have anything further they wish to address?

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 27, 2007 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-04693-JSW Document 98 Filed 11/30/07 Page 2 of 2