KASOWITZ, BENSON, TORRES & FRIEDMAN LLP

101 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 2300
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111

Case

:10-cv-09198-JVS -RNB Document 328 _ Filed 09/10/12 Page 1of2 Page ID
#:14602

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

PLAINTIFFS’ OBJECTION OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE RESPONSE

ase No. CV 10-9198 JVS (RNBx)

KASOWITZ, BENSON, TORRES & FRIEDMAN LLP

101 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 2300
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111

Cas

2:10-cv-09198-JVS -RNB Document 328 Filed 09/10/12 Page 2of2 PageID
#:14603

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

PLAINTIFFS’ OBJECTION OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE RESPONSE
Case No. CV 10-9198 JVS (RNBx)
1