Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02482/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02482-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1104 Recovery of Benefits to Employee

---

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 

u, 

FILED 

DEC 18 21]12 

CLERK, U.S. DISTRI,CT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

BY DEPUTY 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

STANLEY HOFFMAN, Individually and on 

behalfofthe Estate of PHYLLIS 

HOFFMAN, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR TECHNIONISREAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, 

INC., aka AMERICAN TECHNION 

SOCIETY, aka A TS, et ai., 

Defendants. 

CASE NO. 09-CV -2482 BEN (KSC) 

ORDER: 

(1) GRANTING EX PARTE 

APPLICATION TO STRIKE OR 

DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S MOTION 

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS ON 

THE LIFE INSURANCE BENEFITS 

(2) DENYING AS UNTIMELY 

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST 

ALL DEFENDANTS ON THE LIFE 

INSURANCE BENEFITS 

[Docket Nos. 75, 79] 

Presently before the Court is Defendant ATS's Ex Parte Application to Strike or Dismiss 

Plaintifrs Motion for Summary Judgment Against All Defendants on the Life Insurance Benefits. 

(Docket No. 79.) For good cause shown, the Ex Parte Application is GRANTED. Because Plaintiff 

did not request modification of the Scheduling Order Regulating Discovery and Other Pretrial 

Proceedings (Docket No. 52), Plaintifrs Motion for Summary Judgment Against All Defendants on 

the Life Insurance Benefits (Docket No. 75) is DENIED AS UNTIMELY. See u.s. Dominator v. 

Factory Ship Robert E. Resoff, 768 F.2d 1099, 1103-04 (9th Cir. 1985) (where no request to modify 

the scheduling order has been made, the court may properly deny as untimely a motion filed after the 

- 1 - 09cv2482 

Case 3:09-cv-02482-BEN-KSC Document 83 Filed 12/18/12 Page 1 of 2
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 

) 

deadline specified in the scheduling order), superseded by statute on other grounds as recognized in 

Simpson v. Lear Astronics Corp., 77 F.3d 1170, 1174 (9th Cir. 1996). Plaintiff must request that the 

Scheduling Order be modified before filing a pretrial motion after the deadline established in the 

Scheduling Order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: DeCemb~ 2012 

- 2- 09cv2482 

Case 3:09-cv-02482-BEN-KSC Document 83 Filed 12/18/12 Page 2 of 2