Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00455/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00455-11/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

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MAMTA PATEL-PURI,

Plaintiff,

 v.

METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE

COMPANY et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C-05-0455 MMC

ORDER AFFORDING DEFENDANTS

LEAVE TO FILE SURREPLY; VACATING

HEARING ON MOTIONS FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(Docket Nos. 53, 54)

Before the Court are (1) the motion for summary judgment, filed June 28, 2006, by

plaintiff Mamta Patel-Puri; and (2) the motion for summary judgment, filed June 30, 2006,

by defendants Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“MetLife”), Kaiser Foundation Health

Plan, Inc. (“Kaiser”) and Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. Long Term Disability Plan

(“Plan”). In plaintiff’s reply in support of her motion for summary judgment, she relies on

McLeod v. Oregon Lithoprint, Inc., 46 F.3d 956 (9th Cir. 1995), a case not cited previously

by either party. As the facts of McLeod are similar to those presented in the instant case,

the Court will afford defendants an opportunity to file a surreply.

Accordingly, defendants may file, no later than August 18, 2006, a surreply of no

more than five pages in length addressing McLeod’s relevance, or lack thereof, to the

issues presented in the instant case. The August 11, 2006 hearing on the cross-motions

Case 3:05-cv-00455-MMC Document 66 Filed 08/09/06 Page 1 of 2
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

for summary judgment is hereby VACATED. The matter will be reset for a hearing only if

the Court determines, after reviewing defendant’s surreply, that oral argument would assist

the Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 9, 2006 MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-00455-MMC Document 66 Filed 08/09/06 Page 2 of 2