Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-04088/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-04088-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LYLYE HUGHES,

Plaintiff, No. C 07-4088 PJH

v. ORDER GRANTING

REQUEST TO CONTINUE

UNUMPROVIDENT CORPORATION, HEARING

et al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

Before the court is defendant New York Life Insurance Company’s (“NYLIC”) ex

parte application to continue the hearing on plaintiff’s remand motion. The remand motion

is currently set for hearing on October 31, 2007, and defendant NYLIC seeks a continuance

until November 28, 2007. Plaintiff has filed an opposition to defendant’s request for a

continuance. 

Preliminarily, the court notes that defendant’s motion, styled as an “ex parte” motion,

is procedurally improper. First, it appears that the motion has not been filed ex parte at all

(i.e., without notice to the other side), in view of the fact that plaintiff has had an opportunity

to respond to the motion. Second, even if the motion were a true ex parte motion, NYLIC

has failed to invoke any governing rule or statute that would allow for the filing of an ex

parte motion, per the requirements of Civil Local Rule 7-10. Indeed, NYLIC has failed to

file its motion pursuant to any governing rule whatsoever, leaving it to the court to construe

the motion as properly filed pursuant to appropriate authority (e.g., Civ. L. R. 6-3 or Civ. L.

R. 7-11). 

The court reminds defense counsel that all motions must be filed in compliance with

the local rules, and its counsel’s responsibility to ensure that any motions filed with the

Case 4:07-cv-04088-PJH Document 19 Filed 10/10/07 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

court adequately set forth the grounds and authority for the relief being sought. 

Notwithstanding defendant’s failure to comply with the local rules, the court hereby

GRANTS defendant’s request for a continuance. Defendant has demonstrated good cause

for a continuance, in view of the need to conduct further investigation of the facts

surrounding the QN6-82 agent contract. Accordingly, and in view of lead defense counsel’s

unavailability for hearing until November 28, the hearing on plaintiff’s motion to remand is

hereby CONTINUED from October 31, 2007, to November 28, 2007. In accordance with

the standard 35-day briefing schedule, defendant’s opposition brief shall be due no later

than November 7, 2007. Plaintiff’s reply brief shall be due no later than November 14,

2007. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 10, 2007 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:07-cv-04088-PJH Document 19 Filed 10/10/07 Page 2 of 2