Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01333/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01333-6/pdf.json

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

---

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT McADAM,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 12-cv-1333 BTM-MDD

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

RELIEF FROM ORDERS NOS.

94 AND 105 PURSUANT TO

F.R.C.P. 60(b)(3) and (6).

v.

STATE NATIONAL INSURANCE

COMPANY, INC. and DOES 1

through 25, inclusive,

Defendants.

On September 19, 2014 Plaintiff’s counsel, Ms. Clark, filed a motion

requesting relief from this Court’s Order No. 94, denying Plaintiff’s Motion to

Strike Defendants’ Noncompliant Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the

Alternative, Motion to Strike Excess Pages, and Order No. 105, granting

Defendants’ Motion to Withdraw Admissions. Ms. Clark argued that Plaintiff

was denied from presenting full argument on the two motions underlying

Orders Nos. 94 and 105 because she contends she later discovered that

Defendants’ counsel, Mr. Elstein, allegedly made certain misrepresentations

to her and this Court, through its law clerk, in association with a request for a

continuance. Ms. Clark believes these alleged misrepresentations call Mr.

Elstein’s entire credibility into question. The Court heard oral argument on

1 12-cv-1333 BTM-MDD

Case 3:12-cv-01333-BTM-MDD Document 184 Filed 11/05/14 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

the matter on October 28, 2014 and subsequently accepted sealed

evidentiary documents for in camera review. 

Having examined the sealed evidentiary documents, the Court finds

that Mr. Elstein was truthful when he communicated with Ms. Clark and this

Court’s law clerk in relation to his request for a continuance. 

Furthermore, as to Order 94, the Court continues to find that good

cause existed for granting Mr. Elstein relief to extend the deadline for filing

the motion once he missed it because Mr. Elstein was truthful in stating that

he was hospitalized between April 4, 2014 and April 8, 2014. Order 105 is

not vacated because the Court’s assessment of Mr. Elstein’s credibility was

not a basis for its decision in Order 105. During the April 23, 2014 hearing

on Defendants’ Motion to Withdraw Admissions, the Court stated its basis for

granting Defendants’ Motion to Withdraw Admissions under F.R.C.P. 36(b)

and the factors set forth in Conlon v. United States, 474 F.3d 616 (9th Cir.

2007).

For the reasons discussed above, Plaintiff’s motion for relief from

Orders Nos. 94 and 105 and sanctions is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 5, 2014 

 BARRY TED MOSKOWITZ, Chief Judge

United States District Court

2 12-cv-1333 BTM-MDD

Case 3:12-cv-01333-BTM-MDD Document 184 Filed 11/05/14 Page 2 of 2