Morning Star Packing Company, et al v. SK Foods, et al

Filing 71

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 4/14/2009 ORDERING 70 The deadline for Rahal and Intramark to respond to the Complaint shall be EXTENDED to 10 days following the Court's ruling on the pending motion to dismiss, or if appropriate, within the time permitted by the FRCP for responding to an amended complaint, should an amended complaint be filed by Plaintiffs. (Reader, L)

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

Dale C. Campbell, State Bar No. 99173 James Kachmar, State Bar No. 216781 W. Scott Cameron, State Bar No. 229828 WEINTRAUB GENSHLEA CHEDIAK Law Corporation 400 Capitol Mall, 11th Floor Sacramento, California 95814 [phone] ­ Main [phone] ­ Facsimile Attorneys for Plaintiffs The Morning Star Packing Company, Liberty Packing Company, LLC, California Fruit & Tomato Kitchens, LLC, and The Morning Star Company

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THE MORNING STAR PACKING COMPANY, a California limited partnership; LIBERTY PACKING COMPANY, LLC, a California limited liability company; CALIFORNIA FRUIT & TOMATO KITCHENS, LLC, a California limited liability company; and THE MORNING STAR COMPANY, a California corporation, Plaintiffs, vs. SK FOODS, L.P., a California limited partnership; SCOTT SALYER, an individual; RANDALL RAHAL, an individual; INTRAMARK USA, INC., a New Jersey corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case No. 2:09-CV-00208 MCE-EFB REVISED STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING EXTENSION OF TIME FOR DEFENDANTS RANDALL RAHAL AND INTRAMARK USA, INC. TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT [Local Rule 6-144(a)]

/// ///
Revised Stip. and [Proposed] Order re Defs Randall Rahal's and Intramark USA's Response to Complaint

{1116354.DOC;}

1

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

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 The Morning Star Packing Company, Liberty Packing Company, LLC, California Fruit & Tomato Kitchens, LLC, and The Morning Star Company (collectively, "Plaintiffs") and defendants Randall Rahal ("Rahal") and Intramark USA, Inc. ("Intramark") (collectively, "Defendants"), by and through their counsel of record, hereby submit the following Stipulation and Proposed Order pursuant to Local Rule 6-144(a): WHEREAS, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint in the above-captioned case on January 5, 2009; WHEREAS, Defendant SK Foods, L.P. filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' complaint on April 8, 2009, which is set for hearing on June 25, 2009; WHEREAS, Defendant Scott Salyer filed a joinder in Defendant SK Foods, L.P.'s motion to dismiss on April 8, 2009; WHEREAS, counsel for Rahal and Intramark previously accepted service of the Summons and Complaint on behalf of Rahal and Intramark in exchange for Plaintiffs' agreement to an initial extension the time for Rahal and Intramark to respond to the Complaint until April 8, 2009; WHEREAS, this is the second extension to respond to the Complaint agreed to by Plaintiffs and Defendants in this matter, and is intended to coordinate the response date of Intramark and Rahal with the response date of SK Foods and Scott Salyer; and WHEREAS, this second extension to respond to the Complaint will not require the modification of any dates of any matters pending before the Court or in the Court's Order Requiring Joint Status Report. THEREFORE, Plaintiffs and Defendants, by and through their respective counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows: 1. Rahal and Intramark shall not contest the sufficiency of process or

service of process; provided, however, that by entering into this Stipulation, Rahal and Intramark do not waive any other defense, including, but not limited to, the
{1116354.DOC;}

2

Revised Stip. and [Proposed] Order re Defs Randall Rahal's and Intramark USA's Response to Complaint

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

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

defense of lack of personal or subject matter jurisdiction or improper venue; and 2. The deadline for Rahal and Intramark to respond to the Complaint

shall be extended to 10 (ten) days following the Court's ruling on the pending motion to dismiss, or if appropriate, within the time permitted by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for responding to an amended complaint, should an amended complaint be filed by Plaintiffs. IT IS SO STIPULATED. Dated: April 9, 2009 WEINTRAUB GENSHLEA CHEDIAK Law Corporation By: /s/ Dale C. Campbell Dale C. Campbell Attorneys for Plaintiffs The Morning Star Packing Company, Liberty Packing Company, LLC, Fruit & Tomato Kitchens, LLC, and The Morning Star Company WALDER, HAYDEN & BROGAN, P.A. By: /s/ Christopher D. Adams Christopher D. Adams Attorneys for Defendants Randall Rahal and Intramark USA, Inc. ORDER IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 14, 2009 __________________________________ MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

California

Dated: April 9, 2009

{1116354.DOC;}

3

Revised Stip. and [Proposed] Order re Defs Randall Rahal's and Intramark USA's Response to Complaint

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com