Opinion
STUART G. GROSS, DAN C. GOLDBERG, GROSS LAW, P.C., San Francisco, CA, JOSEPH R. SAVERI, ANDREW M. PURDY, KEVIN E. RAYHILL, JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, INC., San Francisco, CA, Attorneys for Plaintiffs the Paskenta Band of Nomlaki Indians and the Paskenta Enterprises Corporation.
LIBERTY LAW, A.P.C., John M. Murray, Attorneys for Defendants INES CROSBY, JOHN CROSBY, LESLIE LOHSE, LARRY LOHSE, TED PATA, JUAN PATA, CHRIS PATA, SHERRY MYERS, FRANK JAMES, THE PATRIOT GOLD & SILVER EXCHANGE, INC., and NORMAN R. RYAN.
REED SMITH, LLP, Scott H. Jacobs, Attorneys for Defendants UMPQUA BANK, AND UMPQUA HOLDINGS CORPORATION.
MEHER LAW OFFICE, Ted Meher, Attorneys for Defendants GARTH MOORE, AND GARTH MOORE INSURANCE AND FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.
MURPHY, PEARSON, BRADLEY, & FEENEY, William Munoz, Attorneys for Defendants ASSOCIATED PENSION CONSULTANTS, INC.
DOWNEY BRAND LLP, Kevin M. Seibert, Attorneys for Defendants HANESS & ASSOCIATES, LLC, AND ROBERT M. HANESS.
BOUTIN JONES INC., Michael Fogarty, Attorneys for Defendants QUICKEN LOANS, INC.
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR DEFENDANTS TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT
GARLAND E. BURRELL, Jr., District Judge.
WHEREAS, on March 10, 2015, the Paskenta Band of Nomlaki Indians and Paskenta Enterprises Corporation ("Plaintiffs") filed the Complaint in this action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California;
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs completed service upon Defendants Ines Crosby, et al. ("Defendants") on various days thereafter;
WHEREAS, certain Defendants have indicated their desire for additional time to evaluate the Complaint and the appropriate response thereto;
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs have given certain Defendants extensions of time to respond to the Complaint under Civil Local Rule 144(a), of between two and four weeks;
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs believe that it would be in the interest of efficient case management to establish a unified schedule for all Defendants to respond to the Complaint and for any related motion practice under Fed. Rule. Civ. Pro. 12(b);
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and between Plaintiffs and Defendants, by and through their respective counsel, Civil Local Rules 143 and 144, and subject to approval by the Court:
1. Defendants shall have twenty-eight (28) days from April 8, 2015, up to and including May 6, 2015, to file a responsive pleading in this matter;
2. Alternatively, in the event Plaintiffs file an Amended Complaint prior to May 6, 2015, Defendants shall have twenty-eight (28) days from the date of the Amended Complaint's filing to respond to it;
3. If Defendant's responsive pleading to either Plaintiffs' Complaint or Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint is in the form of a motion under Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12(b):
A. Plaintiffs' opposition to any such motion by Defendants will be due forty-five (45) days from the date Defendants' motion is filed; and
B. Defendants' reply in support of any such motion will be due fourteen (14) days from the date Plaintiffs' opposition is filed.
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED:
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.