Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-05255/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-05255-13/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1132 E.R.I.S.A.: Employee Benefits

---

________________________________________________________________________________________

1

Case No.: 3:15-cv-05255-WHA

STIP. AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR TIME EXTENSION

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

[SEE SIGNATURE PAGE FOR COUNSEL]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ED DAIE,

Plaintiff,

v.

 Defendants,

THE REED GROUP, INTEL 

CORPORATION, CLAIM APPEAL 

FIDUCIARY SERVICES, and Does 1-50

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 3:15-cv-05255-WHA

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 

FOR PLAINTIFF TO FILE 

OPPOSITION BRIEF

Date: July 21, 2016

Time: 8:00 AM

Courtroom: 8 (19th Floor)

Judge: Hon. William Alsup

STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

Plaintiff Ed Daie and Defendants Intel Corporation, Reed Group, and Claim 

Appeal Fiduciary Services hereby stipulate and move the Court for an Order extending 

the time for Plaintiff to file his Opposition Brief against Defendants’ Motion for 

Summary Judgment. In support hereof, the parties show the Court as follows:

Case 3:15-cv-05255-WHA Document 53 Filed 06/22/16 Page 1 of 4
________________________________________________________________________________________

2

Case No.: 3:15-cv-05255-WHA

STIP. AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR TIME EXTENSION

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

1. On June 10, 2016, Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on 

Plaintiff’s claim. In support of the motion, Defendants filed 51 exhibits from the 

Administrative Record, totaling 2,643 pages in length.

2. At the time of Defendants’ filing, Plaintiff’s counsel was out of the country on 

previously scheduled family vacation. Counsel did not return to the office until 

June 16, 2016.

3. Currently, pursuant to Local Rule 7-3(a), Plaintiff’s Opposition Brief is due to be 

filed on June 24.

4. Plaintiff’s counsel does not believe that 8 days is sufficient time to adequately 

respond to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, given the complexity 

and volume of the Administrative Record in dispute. Plaintiff’s counsel believes 

that this matter can be resolved on summary judgment; therefore, its response 

to Defendant’s motion is of paramount importance.

5. Plaintiff’s counsel contacted Defendant’s counsel on June 20 to discuss its 

agreement to a two-week extension of time for the filing of its Opposition. 

Defendant’s counsel had no objection to the extension and agreed to the 

proposed stipulation.

6. This request is not brought for the purpose of delay, but to give Plaintiff’s 

counsel adequate time to construct and respond to Defendant’s motion.

WHEREFORE, the parties respectfully request that the Court grant Plaintiff a 

two-week extension for the filing of its Opposition Brief. The Opposition would be due 

on July 8 and Defendant’s Reply would be due on July 15. In order to give the Court 

adequate time to review the filings, the parties request that the motion hearing and 

Case 3:15-cv-05255-WHA Document 53 Filed 06/22/16 Page 2 of 4
________________________________________________________________________________________

3

Case No.: 3:15-cv-05255-WHA

STIP. AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR TIME EXTENSION

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

further case management conference be continued until August 4, 2016.

Dated: June 22, 2016 Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Eric Whitehead

Ray Bourhis, Esq. SBN 53196

Eric Whitehead, Esq. SBN 301449

RAY BOURHIS ASSOCIATES

12 Funston Avenue

San Francisco, CA 94129

Tel: (415) 392-4660

Fax: (415) 421-0259

RFBourhis@gmail.com

Eric.Whitehead@RayBourhis.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff, Ed Daie

By: /s/ Nancy Pridgen_________

Nancy B. Pridgen (pro hac vice)

npridgen@patelburkhalter.com

PATEL BURKHALTER LAW GROUP

4045 Orchard Road, Building 400

Atlanta, GA 30080

Tel. (404) 551-5884

Fax (678) 812-3654

Attorney for Defendants

INTEL CORPORATION, REED GROUP,

and CLAIM APPEAL FIDUCIARY SERVICES

Case 3:15-cv-05255-WHA Document 53 Filed 06/22/16 Page 3 of 4
________________________________________________________________________________________

5

Case No.: 3:15-cv-05255-WHA

STIP. AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR TIME EXTENSION

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

[PROPOSED] ORDER

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED 

that the deadline for Plaintiff to file his Opposition Brief is extended until July 8. 

Defendant’s Reply Brief is due July 15. The motion hearing and further case 

management conference will be continued until Thursday, August 4 at 8:00 a.m. in 

Courtroom 8, 19th Floor, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102.

Dated:

__________________________

Hon. William Alsup

United States District Judge

June 22, 2016.

Case 3:15-cv-05255-WHA Document 53 Filed 06/22/16 Page 4 of 4