1:25-cv-01664•Whelan-Vanderhorst v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
Whelan-Vanderhorst v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
1:25-cv-01664Caed31 de dez. de 2025
Texto completo
STIPULATION RE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR REMAND 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 ROBERT HESS (SBN 178042) RHess@maynardnexsen.com MAYNARD NEXSEN LLP 10100 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 550 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: 310.596.4500 Attorneys for Defendant Metropolitan Life Insurance Company UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JOAN WHELAN-VANDERHORST Plaintiff, v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY and Does 1 through 30, inclusive Defendant. Case No. 1:25-cv-01664 KES-SKO STIPULATION RE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND; ORDER Complaint Filed: October 14, 2025 Case 1:25-cv-01664-KES-SKO Document 9 Filed 12/31/25 Page 1 of 3
-1- STIPULATION RE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR REMAND 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 TO THE HONORABLE KIRK E. SHERRIFF AND HIS COURT CLERK: Plaintiff Joan Whelan-Vanderhorst (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant Mtropolitan Life Insurance Company (“Defendant”), by and through their respective counsel, hereby stipulate to the following issues relevant to Plaintiff’s recently filed Notice of Motion and Motion to Remand Action to State Court (Dkt No. 5 and 5-1). At the time Plaintiff filed the Remand Motion, this case was assigned to Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto. The case was subsequently reassigned to District Judge Sherriff. In compliance with the applicable Rules and governing meet-and-confer requirements, counsel for the parties met and conferred in good faith regarding the substance of the Motion to Remand and the potential resolution of the issues raised therein. Despite those efforts, the parties were unable to resolve their differences, and Plaintiff will therefore proceed with the Motion to Remand before Judge Sherriff. The parties also agreed that the remaining briefing schedule will proceed as follows: - Defendant’s opposition to the remand motion shall be due on or before January 13, 2026; - Plaintiff’s reply brief shall be due on or before January 20, 2026; - The hearing on the motion shall be scheduled for February 2, 2026 at 1:30 p.m. IT IS SO STIPULATED. DATED: December 31, 2025 By: MAYNARD NEXSEN LLP /s/ Robert Hess ROBERT HESS Attorneys for Defendant Metropolitan Life Insurance Company DATED: December 31, 2025 By: WHELAN LAW GROUP /s/ Brian D. Whelan BRIAN D. WHELAN Attorneys for Plaintiff Joan Whelan-Vanderhorst Case 1:25-cv-01664-KES-SKO Document 9 Filed 12/31/25 Page 2 of 3
-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 ORDER Pursuant to the Stipulation of the parties, the Court accepts that Plaintiff has satisfied the pre-filing meet and confer requirement for Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand, Doc. 5, and sets the following briefing schedule for that motion: - Defendant’s opposition to the Motion to Remand shall be due on or before January 13, 2026. - Plaintiff’s reply shall be due on or before January 20, 2026. Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand will be taken under submission upon the filing of plaintiff’s reply. A hearing may be set if the Court determines that oral argument is warranted. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 31, 2025 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Case 1:25-cv-01664-KES-SKO Document 9 Filed 12/31/25 Page 3 of 3
Continue sua pesquisa no ChatGPT ou Claude
Conecte o Omnilex para pesquisar o corpus jurídico pelo seu assistente de IA.