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 PLAINTIFFS’ OBJECTION OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE RESPONSE Case No. CV 10-9198 JVS (RNBx) KASOWITZ, BENSON, TORRES & FRIEDMAN LLP 101 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 2300 SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111 KASOWITZ, BENSON, TORRES & FRIEDMAN LLP CHARLES N. FREIBERG (SBN 70890) BRIAN P. BROSNAHAN (SBN 112894) JACOB N. FOSTER (SBN 250785) 101 California Street, Suite 2300 San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: (415) 421-6140 Facsimile: (415) 398-5030 LEVINE & MILLER HARVEY R. LEVINE (SBN 61879) CRAIG A. MILLER (SBN 116030) LEVINE & MILLER 550 West C Street, Suite 1810 San Diego, CA 92101-8596 Telephone: (619) 231-9449 Facsimile: (619) 231-8638 Attorneys for Plaintiffs JOYCE WALKER, KIM BRUCE HOWLETT, and MURIEL SPOONER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JOYCE WALKER, KIM BRUCE HOWLETT, and MURIEL SPOONER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE SOUTHWEST, a Texas corporation, Defendant. CLASS ACTION CASE NO.: CV 10-9198 JVS (RNBx) Formerly Case No.: 3:10-cv -04852 JSW from Northern District of California PLAINTIFFS’ OBJECTION TO LSW’S NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE ATTACHED RESPONSE TO LSW’S NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY Judge James V. Selna Courtroom: 10C Case 2:10-cv-09198-JVS -RNB Document 328 Filed 09/10/12 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:14602 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 PLAINTIFFS’ OBJECTION OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE RESPONSE Case No. CV 10-9198 JVS (RNBx) 1 KASOWITZ, BENSON, TORRES & FRIEDMAN LLP 101 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 2300 SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111 On September 6, 2012, Defendant Life Insurance Company of the Southwest (“LSW”) filed a “Notice of Supplemental Authority,” which discussed the case of Tucker v. Pacific Bell Mobile Services, 208 Cal. App. 4th 201 (2012) and argued that Tucker provides “additional support” for denial of class certification and for “LSW’s contention that the measure of damages used by Plaintiffs’ expert is not appropriate under the UCL.” See Dkt. 325. LSW’s filing should be disregarded because LSW did not seek leave of Court to file its supplemental papers. See In Re: Toyota Motor Corp. Unintended Acceleration Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation, 838 F. Supp. 2d 967, 970 n. 1 (C.D. Cal. 2012) (Selna J.) (party that filed notice of recent authority engaged in an “unauthorized supplemental filing[]”). Indeed, when Plaintiffs requested leave to file a notice of supplemental authority in connection with a previous motion in this action, this Court denied the request for leave. See Dkt. 47, 48. In the event that the Court does not disregard LSW’s improper filing, Plaintiffs request leave to submit a brief response. The proposed response is attached hereto as Exhibit A. Dated: September 10, 2012 KASOWITZ, BENSON, TORRES & FRIEDMAN LLP By: /s/ Brian P. Brosnahan Case 2:10-cv-09198-JVS -RNB Document 328 Filed 09/10/12 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:14603