Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-01001/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-01001-4/pdf.json

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LENSCRAFTERS, INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE

COMPANY, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 04-1001 SBA

ORDER

[Docket Nos. 99, 103, 110]

OnJune 6, 2005, this Court issued an Order denying without prejudice Defendant and Cross-Claimant

Executive Risk Specialty Insurance Company's ("ERSIC") motion for summary judgment against Defendant

and Cross-Claimant Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company ("Liberty") [Docket No. 84]. However, the

Court granted ERSIC leave to re-file its motion forsummary judgment to be heard after the close ofdiscovery

on July 1, 2005 but prior to the motion cut-off deadline of September 13, 2005. 

On August 12, 2005, ERSIC filed a motion forsummary judgment [Docket No. 103] and Liberty filed

a cross-motion for partial summary judgment [Docket No. 110]. The deadline for filing dispositive motions

to be heard on September 13, 2005, however, was August 9, 2005. See Civ. L. R. 7-2(a) ("all motions must

be filed, served, and noticed in writing on the motion calendar of the assigned Judge for hearing not less than

35 days after service of the motion.") Accordingly, both motions are untimely. 

Also on August 12, 2005, ERSIC and Liberty filed a joint exparte motion[Docket No. 99] requesting

that the Court extend the dispositive motion cut-off date from September 13, 2005 to October 4, 2005, so

that ERSIC and Liberty's cross-motions for summary judgment could be heard prior to the parties' October

25, 2005 PretrialConference. In the joint ex parte motion, ERSIC and Liberty explain that their failure to file

their cross-motions for summary judgment within the requisite period of time results from the fact that they

learned on July 19, 2005 that the September 13, 2005 hearing date was no longer available. 

Case 4:04-cv-01001-SBA Document 112 Filed 08/17/05 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

Having considered the ex parte motion, the Court notes that, regardless of whether the September 13,

2005 hearing date was available, ERSIC and Liberty's failure to comply with the notice period set forth in the

Civil Local Rules is inexcusable. However, the Court finds that, in the interests of judicial economy, ERSIC

and Liberty's cross-motions should be heard prior to the October 25, 2005 Pretrial Conference.

Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT ERSIC and Liberty's ex parte request [Docket No. 99] is

GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. ERSIC and Liberty's request for a general extension of the

dispositive motion cut-off deadline is DENIED. However, the Court GRANTS ERSIC and Liberty a limited

continuance ofthe cut-off deadline forthe instant cross-motions forsummary judgment. Accordingly, ERSIC's

motion for summary judgment [Docket No. 103] and Liberty's cross-motion for partial summary judgment

[Docket No. 110] shall be set for hearing on October4, 2005 at 1:00 p.m. The Court, in its discretion, may

adjudicate the motions without a hearing, in which case the Clerk will notify the parties that no appearance is

necessary. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT ERSIC and Liberty's opposition briefs shall be filed no later

than August 26, 2005. ERSIC and Liberty's reply briefs, if any, shall be filed no later than September 2,

2005. The parties are expressly reminded that this Order does not modify any other dates set forth in the

Court's March 21, 2005 Pretrial Order. Accordingly, no other dispositive motions may be filed. The parties

are also reminded that they are expected to be familiar with, and to comply with, the Civil LocalRules and the

Court's standing orders. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

Dated: 8-17-05 SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG

United States District Judge

Case 4:04-cv-01001-SBA Document 112 Filed 08/17/05 Page 2 of 2