Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-02114/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-02114-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of 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

MAJIMAN HAFIZ, et al.,

Plaintiff(s), No. C 07-2114 PJH

v. ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO

EXTEND PRETRIAL DATES

METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE

COMPANY,

Defendant(s).

_______________________________/

Before the court is a stipulation and proposed order in which the parties propose that

the pretrial deadlines be extended by more than 60 days due to certain unspecified

calendar conflicts and a planned vacation of counsel for both parties. Even though the

court finds that the parties have not established good cause for the extension they seek,

the court would be amenable to a more modest extension of the fact and expert discovery

deadlines but will not approve the request to move the dispositive motions deadline from

August 6, 2008 to October 15, 2008. The parties were advised in the August 17, 2007

case management and pretrial order, that the court hears dispositive motions no later than

120 days before trial. Yet the parties propose a hearing date that is 45 days before trial

and only three weeks before the pretrial conference. The court wonders just how all the

pretrial papers (joint pretrial statement, motions in limine, jury instructions, etc.) can be

prepared and filed as required on October 6, 2008, if dispositive motions have not yet been

heard, much less decided. The parties are reminded that the court adjusted the original

dates of August 28, 2008 and September 12, 2008 proposed by the parties for pretrial and

trial, in order to provide the 120 days required by this court’s case management plan. If the

Case 4:07-cv-02114-PJH Document 18 Filed 03/18/08 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

parties wish to waive the filing of dispositive motions, the court will approve an extension of

the pretrial dates. If not, the dispositive motions hearing deadline remains as scheduled

and the parties should re-evaluate their discovery needs in light of the established deadline,

and submit a revised stipulation if necessary.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 18, 2008 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:07-cv-02114-PJH Document 18 Filed 03/18/08 Page 2 of 2