Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-03971/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-03971-9/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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SUSAN RENE JONES,

Plaintiff,

 v.

METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE CO., 

et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C-08-03971-JW (DMR)

ORDER RE HEARING AND BRIEFING

SCHEDULE ON DEFENDANTS’

COMPLAINT ALLEGING MATERIAL

VIOLATIONS OF THE ADR LOCAL

RULES AND DEFENDANTS’ MOTION

TO STRIKE

On June 16, 2010, Judge Ware referred Defendants’ Motion to Strike (Docket No. 41,

superseded by Defendants’ Supplemental and Amended Motion to Strike, Docket No. 108 

(hereinafter “Motion to Strike”)) to this Court for adjudication. The hearing on the Motion to Strike

is set for September 23, 2010. On July 15, 2010, Defendants submitted a complaint alleging

material violations of the ADR Local Rules (“ADR complaint”) under ADR L.R. 2-4(b). On July

20, 2010, Defendants’ ADR complaint was referred to this Court to be decided as a matter related to

the Motion to Strike, and due to the recusal of ADR Magistrate Judge Laporte. See Docket No. 125.

Accordingly, this Court will consider Defendants’ ADR complaint as part of Defendants’

Motion to Strike. In lieu of an order to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed per ADR

L.R. 2-4(c), and because Defendants’ ADR complaint is subsumed by and directly relates to the

same issues as Defendants’ Motion to Strike, the Court hereby orders Plaintiff to address

Defendants’ ADR complaint as part of Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendants’ Motion 

Case 5:08-cv-03971-RMW Document 126 Filed 07/20/10 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

to Strike. The previous briefing schedule set by this Court on June 18, 2010 on Defendants’ Motion

to Strike is VACATED. 

The new briefing schedule in which Plaintiff shall submit, in one document that complies

with Civ. L.R. 7-3, any opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Strike and Defendants’ ADR complaint

is as follows:

C Plaintiff’s Opposition shall be filed by no later than August 5, 2010;

C Defendants’ Reply shall be filed by no later than August 12, 2010.

This matter will be conducted on the record, but under seal as appropriate to preserve ADR

confidentiality, and all further briefing on these matters shall be submitted in compliance with

Civil Local Rule 79-5.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 20, 2010 _______________________________

 DONNA M. RYU

 United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:08-cv-03971-RMW Document 126 Filed 07/20/10 Page 2 of 2