Montoya v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company et al
Plaintiff: Marlon Montoya
Defendant: Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company and The RSL Group and Blanket Trust
Case Number: 4:2014cv02740
Filed: June 13, 2014
Court: US District Court for the Northern District of California
Office: Oakland Office
County: Contra Costa
Presiding Judge: Donna M. Ryu
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
Cause of Action: 28:1132
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
May 15, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 119 ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES by Hon. William H. Orrick granting in part and denying in part 109 Motion for Attorney Fees. Within ten (10) days of the date of this Order plaintiff and defendant shall submit a joint proposed judgment on the motion for attorney's fees that excludes the counsel and paralegal time identified in this order and uses the appropriate rates for work through and post May 2015. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/15/2017)
May 3, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 117 ORDER EXTENDING TIME granting 116 STIPULATION- Reply in support of 109 MOTION for Attorney Fees due by 5/3/2017. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 05/03/2017. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/3/2017)
April 17, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 111 ORDER granting 110 STIPULATION to continue briefing deadlines and hearing re 109 MOTION for Attorney Fees. Response due by 4/24/2017. Reply due by 5/1/2017. Motion Hearing set for 5/17/2017 02:00 PM in Courtroom 2, 17th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. William H. Orrick. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 04/17/2017. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/17/2017)
February 2, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 103 JUDGMENT. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 02/02/2017. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/2/2017)
December 19, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 95 ORDER ON DISPUTES RE FINAL JUDGMENT. The parties shall submit an agreed-to form of judgment no later than January 6, 2017. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 12/19/2016. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/19/2016)
September 27, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 77 ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT by Judge William H. Orrick granting 53 Motion for Summary Judgment by Montoya; denying 64 Motion for Summary Judgment by Reliance. Within 20 days of the date of this Order, Montoya and Reliance shal l meet and confer on a proposed form of judgment. If the parties cannot agree on the form that judgment should take, they shall file briefs (not to exceed 10 pages each) justifying their competing proposals. The briefs shall be filed within 45 days of the date of this Order. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/27/2016)
January 4, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 69 ORDER granting 68 Stipulation extending deadlines. Responses due by 1/5/2016. Replies due by 1/19/2016. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 1/4/2016. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/4/2016)
December 30, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 67 ORDER granting 66 STIPULATION as to 53 , 64 Motions for Summary Judgment.Responses due by 1/4/2016. Replies due by 1/18/2016. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 12/30/2015. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/30/2015)
November 19, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 50 ORDER granting 49 STIPULATION to Extend Briefing Schedule and Hearing Date. Motion Hearing set for 2/3/2016 02:00 PM in Courtroom 2, 17th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. William H. Orrick. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 11/19/2015. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/19/2015)
March 10, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 36 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT re 31 Supplemental Brief. Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of review and response to an IME report before a final decision on administrative appeal is DENIED based on the record before the Court Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 03/10/2015. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/10/2015)
March 2, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 35 Order by Hon. William H. Orrick denying 24 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. The parties shall proceed with the physical IME and that IME shall be conducted within 60 days of the date of this Order. In supplemental briefing submitted after t he oral argument, the parties raised the new issue of whether Montoya is entitled under ERISA to review the findings of an IME before a final decision on administrative appeal is rendered by Reliance. That issue will be addressed in a separate order. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/2/2015)
Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the California Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Montoya v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Marlon Montoya
Represented By: Laurence Fred Padway
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: The RSL Group and Blanket Trust
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?