Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-02389/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-02389-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Insurance Contract

---

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEFFREY CHANDLER, an individual, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

THE LINCOLN NATIONAL LIFE 

INSURANCE COMPANY, a business 

entity of unknown form; and Does 1 

through 25, inclusive, 

 Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO.: 07-cv-2389-BEN (AJB) 

ORDER: 

(1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF 

TIME; and 

(2) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S EX 

PARTE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE 

TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL 

BRIEFING 

[Doc. Nos. 11, 12] 

On January 11, 2008, this Court issued an Order to Show Cause (“OSC”) 

regarding the timeliness of the removal of this action to the federal court. On January 

15, 2008, Defendant Lincoln National Life Insurance Company filed a response to the 

OSC. Doc. No. 6. On January 31, 2008, Plaintiff Jeffrey Chandler filed an Ex Parte 

Motion for Leave with this Court, which the Court now construes as a Motion for 

Case 3:07-cv-02389-BEN-AJB Document 14 Filed 02/11/08 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 

 -2- 

07cv2389 

Extension of Time to File a Reply to the OSC. See Doc. No. 11. The Court is 

satisfied that Plaintiff has shown good cause for its failure to file a timely response. 

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for an Extension of Time and 

accepts his late-filed Reply to the OSC. Plaintiff is cautioned, however, regarding his 

need to comply with court-issued deadlines in the future. 

Additionally, on February 1, 2008, Defendant asked this Court for leave to file 

supplemental briefing on the issue of jurisdiction. Because Defendant addressed only 

the timeliness of its removal in its original reply, as was requested by the Court in its 

OSC, Defendant now asks for leave to file a response to Plaintiff’s argument that the 

Court lacks jurisdiction because the amount in controversy does not exceed $75,000. 

Having considered Defendant’s request, and for good cause showing, the Court 

GRANTS Defendant’s request. Defendant shall have until February 25, 2008 to file 

supplemental briefing addressing any and all potential issues related to the subject 

matter jurisdiction of this Court over this case. Plaintiff shall reply, if at all, on or 

before March 3, 2008. 

Dated: February 11, 2008 

By: ___________________________ 

Roger T. Benitez 

U.S. District Judge 

Case 3:07-cv-02389-BEN-AJB Document 14 Filed 02/11/08 Page 2 of 2