Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00208/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00208-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 150
Nature of Suit: Overpayments &amp; Enforcement of Judgments
Cause of Action: 29:1132 E.R.I.S.A.-Employee Benefits

---

1

STIPULATION ANDORDER REGARDING EXTENSION OF TIME: (1) TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT; (2) FOR RULE 

26(F) CONFERENCE; AND (3) TO SERVE INITIAL DISCLOSURES

Amanda Uhrhammer/SBN 199445 

MASTAGNI, HOLSTEDT, AMICK, 

MILLER, JOHNSEN & UHRHAMMER 

1912 I Street 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

TEL. (916) 446-4692 

FAX: (9169 447-4614 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Tamara Boeck 

BULLIVANT, HOUSER & BAILIEY 

1415 L STREET, SUITE 1000 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Tel: (916) 930-2500 

Fax: (916) 930-2501 

Attorneys for Defendants 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

TANYA HANCOCK 

 Plaintiffs, 

v. 

HARTFORD LIFE AND ACCIDENT 

INSURANCE CO.; THE HARTFORD; 

MERCURY INSURANCE COMPANY; AND 

DOES 1 TO 100, INCLUSIVE 

 Defendants. 

Case No. 2:06-CV-00208-FCD-DAD 

STIPULATION TO EXTEND STAY 

 

The Plaintiff and Defendants do hereby agree and STIPULATE to extend the stay of this 

proceeding for an additional 120 days to allow the Plaintiff to exhaust administrative remedies and 

to allow Defendants to consider her claim under the Hartford Plan that is the subject to this 

litigation. The general rule in the Ninth Circuit is that a claimant must exhaust an ERISA plan’s 

internal review procedures before seeking recovery of such benefits in court. Amato v. Bernard, 

618 F.2d 559, 566-68 (9th Circuit 1980). 

Here, both Plaintiff and Defendants agree that Plaintiff shall pursue an appeal of the denial 

of her claim for disability based on the denial letter dated February 5, 2004, and that this action 

shall be stayed for an additional 120 days or the earlier or later of the final decision by The 

Hartford. Neither Plaintiff nor Defendants shall waive any claim or rights by staying the litigation 

and resuming administrative procedure. 

Case 2:06-cv-00208-FCD-DAD Document 21 Filed 10/20/06 Page 1 of 2
2

STIPULATION ANDORDER REGARDING EXTENSION OF TIME: (1) TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT; (2) FOR RULE 

26(F) CONFERENCE; AND (3) TO SERVE INITIAL DISCLOSURES

Dated: October 19, 2006 MASTAGNI, HOLSTEDT, AMICK, 

 MILLER, JOHNSEN & UHRHAMMER 

 

 /s/ Amanda Uhrhammer , 

 AMANDA UHRHAMMER 

 Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Dated: October 19,2006 BULLIVANT, HOUSER & BAILEY 

 

 /s/ Tamara Boeck , 

 TAMARA BOECK 

 Attorneys for Defendants 

Pursuant to the Stipulation of the Parties, 

IT IS SO ORDERED 

Dated: October 20, 2006 

 /s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

 JUDGE OF THE US DISTRICT COURT 

Case 2:06-cv-00208-FCD-DAD Document 21 Filed 10/20/06 Page 2 of 2