Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07427/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07427-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 28:1335 Interpleader Action

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CONNECTICUT GENERAL LIFE

INSURANCE COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

v.

EDWARD RAPOZA, et al.,

Defendants.

NO. C06-7427 TEH 

ORDER REVISING BRIEFING

AND HEARING SCHEDULE ON

DEFENDANT RICHARD H.S.

PANG, JR.’S MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

On April 25, 2007, Defendant Richard H.S. Pang, Jr. (“Pang Jr.”) filed a motion for

summary judgment or, in the alternative, partial summary judgment in this interpleader case. 

In that motion, which was noticed for hearing on June 4, 2007, Pang Jr. asserted that

Defendant Edward Rapoza was disqualified from taking any of the funds held in interpleader

under California Probate Code sections 252 and 254; that Defendants Richard Pang III

(“Pang III”) and Robin Pang-Maganaris have no claim to the funds in interpleader regardless

of whether Rapoza is disqualified; and that Plaintiff Connecticut General Life Insurance

Company should be dismissed from this action as a disinterested stakeholder. Rapoza and

Pang III are proceeding in this case pro se. All other parties are represented by counsel.

Under this Court’s Civil Local Rule 7-3(a), any opposition to Pang Jr.’s motion was

due to be filed by May 14, 2007. Civil Local Rule 7-3(b) provides that any party not

opposing Pang Jr.’s motion had to file a statement of non-opposition by the same date. 

However, the Court received no opposition papers or statements of non-oppositions and

therefore directed its courtroom deputy to telephone the parties. To date, the Court has

received only a statement of non-opposition from Plaintiff and a statement from Pang III that

he opposes Plaintiff’s dismissal. Pang III provided no opposition to Pang Jr.’s motion that

Case 3:06-cv-07427-TEH Document 28 Filed 05/23/07 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

Pang III has no interest in the funds in interpleader, and Rapoza and Pang-Maganaris filed no

opposition or statement of non-opposition whatsoever.

This Court could construe the parties’ silence as a concession that Pang Jr.’s motion

should be granted. However, as a matter of ensuring due process, particularly in a case such

as this one with two parties who are unrepresented by counsel, it will allow the parties one

final opportunity to oppose the motion. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The deadline for opposing Pang Jr.’s motion is extended to Friday, June 15, 2007.

If no opposition is filed and served on the other parties by Rapoza or Pang-Maganaris by that

date, then they will be deemed to concede the merits of Pang Jr.’s motion. Similarly, if Pang

III does not file and serve a supplemental opposition by that date, he will be deemed to

concede the merits of Pang Jr.’s motion except as to Plaintiff’s dismissal. “Serving” a

document means mailing it to all other parties or to their attorney if they have one.

2. Pang Jr. may file a reply to any opposition papers, including Pang III’s original

opposition, on or before Friday, June 29, 2007.

3. The hearing on Pang Jr.’s motion shall be continued from June 4, 2007, to

Monday, July 23, 2007, at 10:00 AM.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 05/23/07 

THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:06-cv-07427-TEH Document 28 Filed 05/23/07 Page 2 of 2