Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00120/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00120-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Combined Benefits Administrators
Defendant
Doctors Medical Center of Modesto
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

STEVEN M. MCQUILLAN (SBN 107339) 

JACOBSON, HANSEN, NAJARIAN & McQUILLAN

A Professional Corporation 

1690 W. Shaw Avenue, Suite 201

Fresno, California 93711

Telephone: (559) 448-0400

Facsimile:

(559) 448-0123

Attorneys for Defendant, Combined Benefits Administrators

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRESNO DIVISION

DOCTORS MEDICAL CENTER OF

MODESTO, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

COMBINED BENEFIT

ADMINISTRATORS; and DOES 1 through

100, Inclusive, 

Defendants.

Case No.: 1:05-CV-00120 AWIDLB

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO

CONTINUE DEFENDANT’S MOTION

TO DISMISS and PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR REMAND

[F.R.C.P. Sec 12(b)(6) and F.R.C.P. Sec. 43]

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the parties hereto,

by their respective counsel, that Defendants Motion to Dismiss For Failure to Exhaust

Administrative Remedies And State A Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted

[F.R.C.P. Sec 12(b)(6) and F.R.C.P. Sec. 43], and Plaintiff’s Motion for Remand which

are currently set to be heard by the Court on May 9, 2005, be taken off calendar and

continued August 8, 2005, at 1:30 p.m. The parties are engaged in settlement

negotiations, but it has taken longer than originally anticipated.

The continuance of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss will, in the event that

settlement is not able to be concluded, allow Plaintiff’s Motion for Remand to be heard

Case 1:05-cv-00120-AWI-DLB Document 11 Filed 04/26/05 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

before Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, will also enable the Court and the parties to

determine the proper jurisdiction for this matter and may furthermore result in

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss being rendered Moot. This will also serve the goals of

judicial economy.

It is further Stipulated and Agreed to between the parties that the Defendant’s

Motion to Dismiss and Plaintiff’s Motion for Remand are hereby moved and to be

noticed for hearing for August 8, 2005, or sometime thereafter subject to the court’s

calendar. All Oppositions and Responses, if any, shall be due Pursuant to Civil Local

Rules 7-3(a)(c) based on any new date set. 

Dated: April _____, 2005 JACOBSON, HANSON, NAJARIAN & McQUILLAN

________/s/_______________________________

Steven M. McQuillan, Esq.

Attorney for Defendant

Dated: April _____, 2005 RALPH HELTON & ASSOCIATES

_______/s/_______________________________

Carrie S. McLain

Attorneys for Plaintiff

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 26, 2005 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00120-AWI-DLB Document 11 Filed 04/26/05 Page 2 of 2