Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-08411/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-08411-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1144(a) E.R.I.S.A supersedes state law 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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JERRY AND DEANNA HAYNIE, 

individually as successors in interest and 

heirs at law,

Plaintiffs,

v.

DANIEL RIPPEE, individually; THE 

PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY 

OF AMERICA; FIDELITY 

INVESTMENTS INSTITUTIONAL 

OPERATIONS COMPANY; DOES 1-20; 

and all persons unknown claiming any legal 

or equitable right, title, estate, lien, or 

interest in the property described in the 

complaint adverse to plaintiffs’ ownership,

Defendants.

No. C 19-08411 WHA 

ORDER REGARDING 

PRUDENTIAL’S EX PARTE 

APPLICATION FOR AN

EXTENSION OF TIME TO

RESPOND TO THE COMPLAINT

In this action removed based on ERISA preemption, defendant Prudential has filed an ex 

parte application for an extension of time to respond to plaintiffs’ complaint. The application 

is “made on the grounds that due to a co-defendant’s removal of the action from state court to

federal court, Prudential’s time to respond to the complaint was accelerated from January 9, 

2020[,] to January 2, 2020” (Dkt. No. 7 at 2). Nevertheless, Prudential seeks to postpone its 

time to respond until February 3. To the extent stated herein, Prudential’s application is 

DENIED.

Case 3:19-cv-08411-WHA Document 12 Filed 01/06/20 Page 1 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

After being served with the state-court summons and complaint on November 25, 

Prudential’s original deadline to respond was December 25. While in state court, plaintiffs 

granted Prudential a fifteen-day extension, postponing Prudential’s deadline until January 9. 

On December 26, defendant Fidelity, with Prudential’s consent, removed this action to our

district, purportedly accelerating Prudential’s time to respond to January 2. When Prudential 

sought additional time to respond from plaintiffs, it learned that plaintiffs’ counsel was out of 

the country with limited access to email until January 5. The day its response was due, 

Prudential instead filed its ex parte application seeking an extension not until January 9, the 

date plaintiffs previously agreed to, but rather until February 3, seventy days after Prudential

was served. 

Local Rule 6-1(a) provides:

Parties may stipulate in writing, without a Court order, to extend the 

time within which to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint, 

or to enlarge or shorten the time in matters not required to be filed 

or lodged with the Court, provided the change will not alter the date 

of any event or any deadline already fixed by Court order. Such 

stipulations shall be promptly filed pursuant to Civil L.R. 5.

Prudential did not obtain a stipulation or even attempt to introduce the email confirming the 

prior extension plaintiffs agreed to. Instead, Prudential asserts that due to the demonstrated 

professional courtesy of plaintiffs’ counsel in granting the first extension, “Prudential has no 

reason to believe that if [plaintiffs’ counsel] was available, she would withhold consent or 

refuse to sign a stipulation in this instance” (Decl. Millioen ¶ 11). 

More is required to proceed outside of the adversarial context. Prudential failed to 

comply with Local Rule 7-10, which states (emphasis added):

[A] party may file an ex parte motion . . . only if a statute, Federal 

Rule, local rule or Standing Order authorizes the filing of an ex 

parte motion in the circumstances and the party has complied with 

the applicable provisions allowing the party to approach the Court 

on an ex parte basis. The motion must include a citation to the 

statute, rule or order which permits the use of an ex parte motion to 

obtain the relief sought.

No such authority was cited. Even so, Prudential’s given justification for proceeding ex parte 

is unavailing. A review of the complaint Prudential has yet to respond to shows at least one 

Case 3:19-cv-08411-WHA Document 12 Filed 01/06/20 Page 2 of 3
3

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

Northern District of California

reason why plaintiffs’ counsel would refuse to stipulate to an extension past January 9. This 

action was brought by two parents who lost their daughter on April 25, 2019, alleging that 

Prudential and Fidelity should not distribute their daughter’s life insurance and 401k funds to 

her ex-husband, Daniel Rippee. To that end, plaintiffs allege that “[i]f the defendants 

distribute the assets to Daniel, which they are in the process of doing, the funds will be gone; 

causing imminent and irreparable injury to Plaintiffs as Decedent’s successors in interest and 

heirs at law. Because of the urgency and importance of the issues presented by the parties’ 

dispute, it is necessary and appropriate for the Court to resolve this dispute by issuing a judicial 

declaration . . . .” (Compl. ¶ 13). The alleged urgency suggests plaintiffs might oppose a 

further extension, even if they previously granted a fifteen-day extension. These allegations 

additionally bely Prudential’s contention that the “requested extension will not prejudice any 

party and will not delay the progress of the case” (Decl. Millioen ¶ 13).

For the reasons stated herein, Prudential’s request for an extension of time until 

February 3 is DENIED. The parties’ prior extension agreement, however, will be honored. 

Absent the filing of a signed stipulation agreeing to a later date, pursuant to Local Rule 6-1(a), 

Prudential shall file its response to the complaint by JANUARY 9 AT NOON. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 6, 2019.

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:19-cv-08411-WHA Document 12 Filed 01/06/20 Page 3 of 3