From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Minshall v. Network Appliance, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
Nov 4, 2011
Case No. CV10-4745 LHK (N.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2011)

Opinion

Case No. CV10-4745 LHK

11-04-2011

CONRAD MINSHALL, Plaintiff, v. NETWORK APPLIANCE, INC. EMPLOYEE BENEFIT PLAN, and STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants.

CHARLES B. PERKINS FLYNN, ROSE & PERKINS CHARLES B. PERKINS Attorney for Plaintiff CONRAD MINSHALL BUCHANAN ANGELI ALTSCHUL & SULLIVAN LLP Andrew Altschul Attorneys for Defendants NETWORK APPLIANCE, INC EMPLOYEE BENEFIT PLAN and STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY


CHARLES B. PERKINS #126942

FLYNN, ROSE & PERKINS

Attorney for Plaintiff

CONRAD MINSHALL

ANDREW ALTSCHUL (SBN 226008)

BUCHANAN ANGELI ALTSCHUL & SULLIVAN LLP

Attorneys for Defendants

NETWORK APPLIANCE, INC. EMPLOYEE

BENEFIT PLAN and STANDARD INSURANCE

COMPANY

STIPULATION AND ORDER CONTINUING

BENCH TRIAL AND BRIEFING SCHEDULE

AS MODIFIED BY THE COURT

TRIAL DATE: January 12, 2012

DEPT: Courtroom 4, 4th Floor

JUDGE: Honorable Lucy H. Koh

WHEREAS, the Court set Motions for Adjudication to be heard in this matter January 12, 2012, with Opening Briefs due November 23, 2011;

WHEREAS, the Plaintiff is scheduled for hip replacement surgery during the briefing schedule for the Motions for Adjudication and so will be unavailable to consult with counsel during part of the briefing schedule and otherwise assist his counsel;

WHEREAS, counsel for Plaintiff has just recently had a recurrence of a medical condition which has and will cause a loss of time and ability to focus in the short term, and which causes a need for Plaintiff's counsel to reduce his workload for the next few months;

WHEREAS, Defendants are not prejudiced by a continuance; and

WHEREAS, no continuations have previously been requested in this case;

THEREFORE, the parties, by their attorneys of record, hereby stipulate that the Motions for Adjudication hearing, currently scheduled for January 12, 2012, be continued until on or about March 15, 2012, with the briefing schedule similarly continued.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

FILER'S ATTESTATION:

Pursuant to General Order No. 45, section X(B) regarding signatures, I attest under

penalty of perjury that the concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from its signatories.

CHARLES B. PERKINS

FLYNN, ROSE & PERKINS

CHARLES B. PERKINS

Attorney for Plaintiff

CONRAD MINSHALL

BUCHANAN ANGELI ALTSCHUL

& SULLIVAN LLP

Andrew Altschul

Attorneys for Defendants

NETWORK APPLIANCE, INC EMPLOYEE BENEFIT

PLAN and STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY

ORDER

Having considered the Stipulation of the parties, it is hereby ordered that the hearing for Motions for Adjudication in this matter, currently scheduled for January 12, 2012, is hereby continued to March 15, 2012, at 1:30 p.m, to last approximately 2 hours.

Although the Civil Local Rules have changed such that the briefing schedule is calculated from the filing of the opening brief instead of the hearing date, see Civil L.R. 7-2, in light of Plaintiff's and Plaintiff's counsel's medical conditions, the Court sets the following briefing schedule:

Opening briefs due February 9, 2012.
Opposition briefs due February 23, 2012.
Reply briefs due March 1, 2012.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

THE HONORABLE LUCY H. KOH

U.S. District Court Judge


Summaries of

Minshall v. Network Appliance, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
Nov 4, 2011
Case No. CV10-4745 LHK (N.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2011)
Case details for

Minshall v. Network Appliance, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:CONRAD MINSHALL, Plaintiff, v. NETWORK APPLIANCE, INC. EMPLOYEE BENEFIT…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

Date published: Nov 4, 2011

Citations

Case No. CV10-4745 LHK (N.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2011)