From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Roek Constr., Inc. v. Atl. Marine Constr. Co.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SACRAMENTO DIVISION
Feb 15, 2013
Case No.: 2:12-CV-02991-WBS-DAD (E.D. Cal. Feb. 15, 2013)

Opinion

Case No.: 2:12-CV-02991-WBS-DAD

02-15-2013

ROEK CONSTRUCTION, INC., a California corporation, Plaintiff, v. ATLANTIC MARINE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., a Virginia corporation, and THE HANOVER INSURANCE GROUP, a Delaware corporation, THE HANOVER INSURANCE COMPANY, a New Hampshire corporation, and DOES 1 to 10, Inclusive Defendants.

VANDEVENTER BLACK LLP VICKIE V. GRASU Attorneys for Defendants, ATLANTIC MARINE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. THE HANOVER INSURANCE GROUP AND THE HANOVER INSURANCE COMPANY DOWNEY BRAND LLP MATTHEW J. WEBER Attorneys for Use Plaintiff, ROEK CONSTRUCTION, INC.


David V. Rose (SBN 112288)
Vickie V. Grasu (SBN 224278)
VANDEVENTER BLACK LLP
790 E. Colorado Blvd., Suite 500
Pasadena, CA 91101-2185
Telephone: (626) 768-1260
Telefax: (626) 768-1261
Email: vgrasu@vanblk.com
Attorneys for Defendants,
ATLANTIC MARINE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., THE HANOVER INSURANCE
GROUP AND THE HANOVER INSURANCE COMPANY

ORDER RE: STIPULATION TO EXTEND

TIME TO RESPOND TO INITIAL

COMPLAINT BY 28 DAYS


[Local Rule 144(a)]

Use Plaintiff ROEK CONSTRUCTION, INC. ("Plaintiff") and Defendants, ATLANTIC MARINE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. ("AMC") and THE HANNOVER INSURANCE GROUP and THE HANOVER INSURANCE COMPANY ("Hanover") (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Defendants"), by and through counsel and pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(A) and Local Rule 144(a), hereby stipulate to a 28-day extension of time for Defendants to respond to Plaintiffs initial Complaint in this matter.

Plaintiff filed the instant action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on December 11, 2012. AMC was served with the Complaint on January 23, 2013 and Hanover was served with the Complaint on January 22, 2013. Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 81(c)(2)(C), Defendant AMC is required to respond to the Complaint on or before February 13, 2013 and Hanover is required to respond to the Complaint on or before February 12, 2013.

Pursuant to Eastern District Local Rule 144, the Parties stipulate and agree to extend these dates by 28 days, to March 12, 2013. This extension is necessary because the Parties are currently attempting to resolve their disputes, and the extension will permit the Parties to resolve the matter and fully dismiss this action with prejudice without incurring the expense of filing unnecessary pleadings. There have been no previous extensions of time in this action and there appear to be no prejudice extending the time for Defendants to respond to the Complaint.

WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, the parties stipulate to this extension for Defendants to respond to the Complaint on or before March 12, 2013.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

VANDEVENTER BLACK LLP

____________________________

VICKIE V. GRASU

Attorneys for Defendants, ATLANTIC MARINE

CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. THE

HANOVER INSURANCE GROUP AND THE

HANOVER INSURANCE COMPANY

DOWNEY BRAND LLP

____________________________

MATTHEW J. WEBER

Attorneys for Use Plaintiff, ROEK

CONSTRUCTION, INC.

ORDER

IT IS SO ORDERED.

____________________________

WILLIAM B. SHUBB

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

PROOF OF SERVICE

I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action. My business address is: 790 E. Colorado Blvd, Suite 500, Pasadena, CA 91101.

On February 14, 2013, I served the foregoing document described as: ORDER RE: STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO INITIAL COMPLAINT BY 28 DAYS as follows: Matthew J. Weber
Jennifer L. Williams
Downey Brand LLP
3425 Brookside Road
Suite A
Stockton, CA 95219
Tel: (209) 473-6450/Fax: (209) 473-6455
Email:
Attorneys for Plaintiff, ROEK
CONSTRUCTION, INC.
EFILE - The above individuals are registered with the District Court for service and filing of documents in this case. Said document was transmitted to the above registrants via e-filing.

I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court at whose direction the service was made.

Executed on February 14, 2013, at Pasadena, California.

____________________________

Sara Rodriguez, declarant


Summaries of

Roek Constr., Inc. v. Atl. Marine Constr. Co.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SACRAMENTO DIVISION
Feb 15, 2013
Case No.: 2:12-CV-02991-WBS-DAD (E.D. Cal. Feb. 15, 2013)
Case details for

Roek Constr., Inc. v. Atl. Marine Constr. Co.

Case Details

Full title:ROEK CONSTRUCTION, INC., a California corporation, Plaintiff, v. ATLANTIC…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SACRAMENTO DIVISION

Date published: Feb 15, 2013

Citations

Case No.: 2:12-CV-02991-WBS-DAD (E.D. Cal. Feb. 15, 2013)