Barkett, et al. v. Sentosa Properties LLC, et al.

Filing 62

ORDER DENYING 61 Stipulation as Moot, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 4/6/2015. (Hall, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

ELIZABETH A. SPERLING (State Bar No. 231474)
JESSICA L. SHARRON (State Bar No. 251702)
ALSTON & BIRD LLP
333 South Hope Street, Sixteenth Floor
Los Angeles, California 90071
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendants
SENTOSA PROPERTIES LLC, a Washington
limited liability company, and ARNOLD HUANG

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

DAVID M. GILMORE (State Bar No. 105429)
STEPHEN D. BLEA (State Bar No. 294339)
GILMORE MAGNESS LEIFER
P.O. Box 28907
Fresno, CA 93729-8907
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
WILLIAM BARKETT, MONTEREY FINANCIAL
ADVISORS LLC, and WASCO INVESTMENTS LLC

16
17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

18

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - FRESNO DIVISION

19
20

WILLIAM BARKETT; MONTEREY
FINANCIAL ADVISORS LLC;
WASCO INVESTMENTS LLC,

21
22
23

Plaintiffs,
v.

24

SENTOSA PROPERTIES LLC, and
ARNOLD HUANG,

25

Case No.: 1:14-CV-1698-LJO-JLT
STIPULATION RE DEFENDANTS’
DEADLINE TO ANSWER FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT; ORDER
DENYING STIPULATION AS MOOT
(Doc. 59)

Defendants.

26
27
28

Plaintiffs William Barkett, Monterey Financial Advisors, LLC, and Wasco
Investments LLC (collectively “Plaintiffs”) and Defendants Sentosa Properties LLC and
1

STIPULATION RE DEFENDANTS’ DEADLINE TO ANSWER FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
LEGAL02/35470088v1

1

Arnold Huang (“Defendants”) (collectively, the “Parties”), by and through their respective

2

counsel of record named herein, hereby stipulate as follows:

3

Whereas, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint on March 9, 2015 (“the FAC”);

4

Whereas, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss on March 26, 2015 (the “Motion”);

5

Whereas, hearing on the Motion is set for April 27, 2015;

6

Whereas, because the Defendants have a potentially case dispositive Motion currently

7

pending before the Court, the Parties believe that Defendants should not file an Answer to

8

the FAC until the Motion is heard and decided.

9

NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby requested and stipulated by and between the

10

Parties, through their respective counsel of record, that Defendants’ deadline to file an

11

Answer to the FAC be set for 14 days after the Court issues its final ruling on the Motion, if

12

the case remains pending at that time, or another time to be prescribed by the Court.

13
14

IT IS SO STIPULATED.
DATED: April 2, 2015

15
16

/s/ Jessica L. Sharron
Jessica L. Sharron
Attorneys for Defendants SENTOSA PROPERTIES LLC,
and ARNOLD HUANG

17
18
19
20
21
22
23

Respectfully submitted,
ALSTON & BIRD LLP

DATED: April 2, 2015

Respectfully submitted,
GILMORE MAGNESS LEIFER
/s/ David M. Gilmore
David M. Gilmore
Attorneys for Plaintiffs WILLIAM BARKETT,
MONTEREY FINANCIAL ADVISORS LLC; and
WASCO INVESTMENTS LLC

24
25
26

ORDER
Before the Court is the stipulation of counsel, set forth above, seeking an extension of

27

time for Defendants to file a responsive pleading. (Doc. 56) However, as noted above,

28

Defendants have filed a responsive pleading under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b). (Doc. 59)
2

STIPULATION RE DEFENDANTS’ DEADLINE TO ANSWER FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
LEGAL02/35470088v1

1

Thus, whether an answer will be filed will be determined by the Court when it decides

2

the merits of Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Thus, the stipulation seeking additional

3

time for Defendants to respond to the First Amended Complaint is DENIED as

4

MOOT.

5
6
7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

April 6, 2015

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

STIPULATION RE DEFENDANTS’ DEADLINE TO ANSWER FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
LEGAL02/35470088v1