Loskot v. Hilton et al

Filing 9

STIPULATION and ORDER 8 to file Second Amended Complaint signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 5/17/2011. Plaintiff may file Amended Complaint and Clerk directed to issue Summons for defendant The Hampton Collective, a California Corporation. Defendant M & M Partnership shall not be required to file an Answer since the one file 3/24/2011 is acceptable as responsive. (Marciel, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6

Jason K. Singleton, State Bar #166170
[e-mail]

SINGLETON LAW GROUP
611 “L” Street, Suite A
Eureka, CA 95501
[phone]
FAX [phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiff, MARSHALL LOSKOT

7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15
16

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
CHAD HYLTON, ADAM SIMAS, dba
)
)
HAMPTON COLLECTIVE, M & M
PARTNERSHIP, and DOES ONE through )
)
FIFTY, inclusive,
)
)
Defendants.
)
MARSHALL LOSKOT,

Case No. 2:11-CV-00569 GEB GGH
STIPULATION TO ALLOW FILING OF
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
and (proposed) ORDER

17

Plaintiff, MARSHALL LOSKOT, filed his complaint on March 1, 2011, and immediately

18

filed an AMENDED COMPLAINT to correct the spelling of named Defendant CHAD HILTON to

19

CHAD HYLTON. The Amended complaint was served on Defendants and Defendant M & M

20

PARTNERSHIP filed its answer on March 24, 2011.

21

No responsive pleading was received from Defendants CHAD HYLTON or ADAM

22

SIMAS and Plaintiff’s counsel wrote Defendants a letter advising Plaintiff would take their

23

default if no responsive pleading was filed. Plaintiff’s counsel was contacted by Defendants

24

representative advising the subject business was owned and operated by THE HAMPTON

25

COLLECTIVE, a California corporation, and not by the named individuals.

26

Plaintiff desires to file a Second Amended Complaint removing the individuals CHAD

27

HYLTON and ADAM SIMAS and inserting THE HAMPTON COLLECTIVE, a California

28

corporation, in their place and stead. No other changes will be made to the complaint. A copy

29
Stipulation and Order to File Second Amended Complaint
30

1

2:11-CV-00569 GEB GGH

1

of the proposed Second Amended Complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

2

Defendant M & M PARTNERSHIP stipulates that Plaintiff may file the Second Amended

3

Complaint and Plaintiff stipulates that M & M PARTNERSHIP shall not be required to file an

4

Answer to the Second Amended Complaint and that its Answer filed March 24, 2011, is

5

accepted as responsive to the Second Amended Complaint.
SINGLETON LAW GROUP

6
7
8

Dated:

May 16, 2011

9

/s/ Jason K. Singleton
Jason K. Singleton, Attorney for Plaintiff,
MARSHALL LOSKOT

10
LAW OFFICES OF GARY BYRON ROACH
11
12

Dated:

May 16, 2011

13

/s/ Gary Byron Roach
Gary Byron Roach, Attorney for Defendant
M & M PARTNERSHIP

14
15

ORDER

16

Based on the foregoing stipulation and good cause appearing,

17

1.

18

Plaintiff may file a Second Amended Complaint and the Clerk is directed to issue

a Summons for Defendant THE HAMPTON COLLECTIVE, a California corporation.

19

2.

Defendant M & M PARTNERSHIP shall not be required to file an Answer to the

20

Second Amended Complaint, its Answer filed March 24, 2011, is accepted as responsive to the

21

Second Amended Complaint.

22

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: 5/17/2011

23

_________________________

24
25
26

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.
United States District Judge
DEAC _Signature- END:

61khh4bb

27
28
29
Stipulation and Order to File Second Amended Complaint
30

2

2:11-CV-00569 GEB GGH