Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01588/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01588-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- 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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LESLIE J. CHANCE,

Plaintiff,

v.

PROTECTIVE LIFE INSURANCE 

COMPANY et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:15-cv-01588-DAD-MJS

ORDER DENYING JOINT STIPULATION 

TO WAIVE HEARING FOR MINORS’ 

COMPROMISE

(Doc. No. 29)

Before the court is the parties’ joint stipulation to waive hearing on plaintiff and crossdefendants’ petition for minors’ compromise. (Doc. Nos. 27, 29) Having considered the petition 

for minors’ compromise and the parties’ stipulation, the court concludes that a hearing is 

appropriate and necessary. Accordingly, the court will DENY the parties’ joint stipulation (Doc. 

No. 29), and the hearing set for March 15, 2016 shall remain unchanged.1

Furthermore, the court expects the parties to comply with Local Rule 202(d), which 

governs attendance at hearings related to settlement:

/////

 

1

In light of defendant’s position that it will not oppose the petition for minor’s compromise (see

Doc. No. 29), the court is willing to advance the hearing. If they wish the matter to be heard 

sooner, the parties are directed to consult with Reneé Gaumnitz, Courtroom Deputy, at 

(559) 499-5652, for available dates and times prior to March 15, 2016.

Case 1:15-cv-01588-DAD-MJS Document 33 Filed 02/29/16 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

Attendance at Hearing. Upon the hearing of the application, the 

representative compromising the claim on behalf of the minor or 

incompetent, and the minor or incompetent shall be in attendance 

unless, for good cause shown, the Court excuses their personal 

attendance. The Court may require the testimony of any 

appropriate expert, as well as the submission of other evidence 

relating to the application.

The court finds that, to date, no good cause has been shown in the parties’ related filings which 

would justify the excusing of the personal appearances of the required individuals. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 28, 2016 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01588-DAD-MJS Document 33 Filed 02/29/16 Page 2 of 2