Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01191/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01191-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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

ELIZABETH FREI,

Plaintiff,

 v.

 HARTFORD LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant. /

No. C-05-01191 EDL

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF’S

CROSS-MOTION

In her brief filed in opposition to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff crossmoved for summary judgment. The next day, Defendant filed a motion to strike Plaintiff’s crossmotion as untimely and improperly noticed. Defendant is correct that Plaintiff’s motion is untimely. 

According to the Court’s October 5, 2005 Case Management and Pretrial Order for Court Trial, the

last day to file dispositive motions was December 13, 2005. Plaintiff’s cross-motion was not filed

until January 24, 2006, which was the deadline for filing her opposition to Defendant’s motion

because the hearing on the motion had been continued from January 17, 2006 to February 14, 2006. 

Plaintiff did not seek relief from the court-ordered deadline, nor did she provide any explanation for

her late-filed motion. Further, Plaintiff improperly noticed her cross-motion for February 14, 2006,

rather than thirty-five days after service of the motion, as required by Civil Local Rule 7-2(a). 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment is stricken as untimely and improperly

//

//

//

//

Case 3:05-cv-01191-EDL Document 44 Filed 02/03/06 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

noticed. The Court does not strike Plaintiff’s January 24, 2006 brief filed in opposition to

Defendant’s motion. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 3, 2006 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-01191-EDL Document 44 Filed 02/03/06 Page 2 of 2