Free Motion for Leave - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:00-cv-01841-LTB-KLM

Document 197

Filed 04/06/2007

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 00-cv-01841-LTB-PAC RICKY EUGENE CLARK, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, an Illinois corporation, Defendant.

STATE FARM'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF REGARDING HILL V. ALLSTATE

Defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company ("State Farm") hereby moves this Court for entry of an Order permitting it to file a supplemental brief regarding the significance of the Hill v. Allstate Insurance Co. decision, in opposition to Plaintiff's proposed amended class definition. As grounds for its Motion, State Farm states as follows: 1. The Local Rules of this Court require that, if a matter is set for hearing,

"supplemental authority must be filed at least five days before the hearing." D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1(E). 2. A few minutes before oral argument began in this matter, Plaintiff's counsel

handed to the Court's clerk and to State Farm's counsel a copy of the Tenth Circuit's decision in Hill v. Allstate Insurance Co., 479 F.3d 735 (10th Cir. Mar. 6, 2007). Plaintiff then presented argument to the Court based on the Hill decision. Plainly, Plaintiff failed to comply with D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1(E).

Case 1:00-cv-01841-LTB-KLM

Document 197

Filed 04/06/2007

Page 2 of 3

3.

Plaintiff can offer no legitimate excuse for the failure to provide adequate advance

notice of his intent to rely on the Hill case. Specifically, the Hill case was decided fully a month ago, and Plaintiff's own counsel, Robert Carey, was counsel for the plaintiff in the Hill case. 4. Because of Plaintiff's failure to provide advance notice to the Court and to State

Farm of his intent to rely on the Hill case at oral argument, State Farm was limited in its ability to effectively address the case at oral argument. 5. Accordingly, State Farm now seeks leave to file a short supplemental brief

regarding the Hill case, which brief is submitted simultaneously herewith. WHEREFORE, Defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company respectfully requests that the Court enter an Order granting this Motion and accepting for filing "State Farm's Supplemental Brief Regarding Hill v. Allstate in Opposition to Plaintiff's Proposed Amended Class Definition," submitted simultaneously herewith. Respectfully submitted this 6th day of April, 2007.

s/ Michael S. McCarthy Michael S. McCarthy Mark W. Fischer Marie E. Williams FAEGRE & BENSON LLP 1700 Lincoln Street, Suite 3200 Denver, Colorado 80203 Phone: (303) 607-3500 Fax: (303) 607-3600 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

2

Case 1:00-cv-01841-LTB-KLM

Document 197

Filed 04/06/2007

Page 3 of 3

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 6th day of April, 2007, I electronically filed the foregoing STATE FARM'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF REGARDING HILL V. ALLSTATE with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following e-mail addresses:
· · ·

Robert Bruce Carey [email protected],[email protected] Leif Garrison [email protected],[email protected] L. Daniel Rector [email protected],[email protected]

s/ Marlene E. Beliveau Marlene E. Beliveau Legal Secretary
fb.us.1949291.01

3