Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05890/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05890-6/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

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JANETTE CORBY,

Plaintiff,

 v.

UNAM INSURANCE COMPANY OF

AMERICA as Administrator and Fiduciary

of the Wink Communications, Inc., Long

Term Disability Plan, Wink

Communications, Inc., Long Term

Disability Plan and Wink Communications,

Inc.,

Defendants. /

No. C 09-5890 WHA

ORDER REGARDING

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO

THE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

On August 16, 2010, an order to show cause was issued due to plaintiff’s failure to file a

timely opposition brief in response to defendants’ pending motion for summary judgment that

had been noticed for hearing on September 2, 2010 (Dkt. No. 42). Plaintiff has timely

responded and the parties have also submitted a stipulation concerning plaintiff’s missed

deadline.

On July 8, 2010, an order of this Court both set the deadline for defendants’ filing of a

motion for summary judgment to July 29, 2010, and set a projected hearing date of September 9

concerning the same (Dkt. No. 24). Nevertheless, defendants’ motion for summary judgment,

when filed on July 29, noticed the hearing for September 2.

Plaintiff’s response, and the parties’ stipulation, now request that the Court return to the

original briefing schedule, and ignore deadlines properly resulting from the noticed hearing date

Case 3:09-cv-05890-WHA Document 45 Filed 08/17/10 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

of September 2. That request is GRANTED. Plaintiff must oppose defendants’ motion by NOON

ON AUGUST 19, 2010. Defendants must reply by NOON ON AUGUST 26, 2010. A new hearing

on the motion is noticed for 8:00 A.M. ON SEPTEMBER 16, 2010. The parties shall note the

deviation of this hearing date from the one anticipated.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 17, 2010. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:09-cv-05890-WHA Document 45 Filed 08/17/10 Page 2 of 2