Paskenta Band of Nomlaki Indians et al v. Crosby et al

Filing 27

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 4/13/15 ORDERING that Defendant shall have twenty-eight (28) days from 4/8/15, up to and indcluding 5/6/2015, to file a responsive pleading in this matter.(Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6

STUART G. GROSS (#251019)
[e-mail]
DAN C. GOLDBERG (#287923)
[e-mail]
GROSS LAW, P.C.
The Embarcadero
Pier 9, Suite 100
San Francisco, CA 94111
t [phone]
f [phone]

7
8

JOSEPH R. SAVERI (#130064)
[e-mail]
ANDREW M. PURDY (#261912)
[e-mail]
KEVIN E. RAYHILL (#267496)
[e-mail]
JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, INC.
505 Montgomery Street, Suite 625
San Francisco, CA 94111
t [phone]
f [phone]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs the Paskenta Band of Nomlaki Indians
and the Paskenta Enterprises Corporation

9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12
13

PASKENTA BAND OF NOMLAKI INDIANS;
and PASKENTA ENTERPRISES
CORPORATION,

14
15

Plaintiffs,
v.

CASE NO.: 2:15-cv-00538-GEBCMK
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER FOR EXTENSION OF
TIME FOR DEFENDANTS TO
RESPOND TO COMPLAINT

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

INES CROSBY; JOHN CROSBY; LESLIE
LOHSE; LARRY LOHSE; TED PATA; JUAN
PATA; CHRIS PATA; SHERRY MYERS;
FRANK JAMES; UMPQUA BANK; UMPQUA
HOLDINGS CORPORATION; GARTH
MOORE; GARTH MOORE INSURANCE
AND FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.;
ASSOCIATED PENSION CONSULTANTS,
INC.; HANESS & ASSOCIATES, LLC;
ROBERT M. HANESS; THE PATRIOT GOLD
& SILVER EXCHANGE, INC.; and NORMAN
R. RYAN,
Defendants,

24
25
26

QUICKEN LOANS INC.,
Nominal Defendants.

27
28
GROSS LAW, P.C.
THE EMBARCADERO
PIER 9, SUITE 100
SAN FRANCISCO, CA
94111

____________________________________________________________________________________________
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR DEFENDANTS TO RESPOND TO
COMPLAINT; Case No. 2:15-cv-00538-GEB-CMK

WHEREAS, on March 10, 2015, the Paskenta Band of Nomlaki Indians and Paskenta

1
2

Enterprises Corporation (“Plaintiffs”) filed the Complaint in this action in the United States

3

District Court for the Eastern District of California;
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs completed service upon Defendants Ines Crosby, et al.

4
5

(“Defendants”) on various days thereafter;
WHEREAS, certain Defendants have indicated their desire for additional time to

6
7

evaluate the Complaint and the appropriate response thereto;
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs have given certain Defendants extensions of time to respond to

8
9

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

10
11

management to establish a unified schedule for all Defendants to respond to the Complaint and

12

for any related motion practice under Fed. Rule. Civ. Pro. 12(b);
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and between Plaintiffs and Defendants, by and

13
14

through their respective counsel, Civil Local Rules 143 and 144, and subject to approval by the

15

Court:

16
17
18

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,

19

2015, Defendants shall have twenty-eight (28) days from the date of the Amended Complaint’s

20

filing to respond to it;

21
22
23
24
25
26

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.

27
28
GROSS LAW, P.C.
THE EMBARCADERO
PIER 9, SUITE 100
SAN FRANCISCO, CA
94111

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED:
____________________________________________________________________________________________
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR DEFENDANTS TO RESPOND TO
COMPLAINT; Case No. 2:15-cv-00538-GEB-CMK
1

1

DATED:

GROSS LAW, P.C.

2

By: /s/ Stuart G. Gross
Stuart G. Gross
Attorneys for Plaintiffs PASKENTA BAND
OF NOMLAKI INDIANS and PASKENTA
ENTERPRISES CORPORATION

3
4
5
6

DATED:

LIBERTY LAW, A.P.C.

7

By:/s/ John M. Murray (as authorized on 4/7/15)
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

8
9
10
11
12
13

DATED:

REED SMITH, LLP

14

By: /s/ Scott H. Jacobs (as authorized on 4/7/15)
Scott H. Jacobs
Attorneys for Defendants UMPQUA BANK,
AND UMPQUA HOLDINGS
CORPORATION

15
16
17
18

DATED:

MEHER LAW OFFICE

19

By: /s/ Ted Meher (as authorized on 4/10/15)
Ted Meher
Attorneys for Defendants GARTH MOORE,
AND GARTH MOORE INSURANCE AND
FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.

20
21
22
23

DATED:

MURPHY, PEARSON, BRADLEY, & FEENEY

24
25
26

By: /s/ William Munoz (as authorized on 4/7/15)
William Munoz
Attorneys for Defendants ASSOCIATED
PENSION CONSULTANTS, INC.

27
28
GROSS LAW, P.C.
THE EMBARCADERO
PIER 9, SUITE 100
SAN FRANCISCO, CA
94111

____________________________________________________________________________________________
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR DEFENDANTS TO RESPOND TO
COMPLAINT; Case No. 2:15-cv-00538-GEB-CMK
2

1

DATED:

DOWNEY BRAND LLP

2
3

By: /s/ Kevin M. Seibert (as authorized on 4/7/15)
Kevin M. Seibert
Attorneys for Defendants HANESS &
ASSOCIATES, LLC, AND ROBERT M.
HANESS

4
5
6

DATED:

BOUTIN JONES INC.

7

By: /s/ Michael Fogarty (as authorized on 4/6/15)
Michael Fogarty
Attorneys for Defendants QUICKEN LOANS,
INC.

8
9
10
11
12
13
14

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 13, 2015

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
GROSS LAW, P.C.
THE EMBARCADERO
PIER 9, SUITE 100
SAN FRANCISCO, CA
94111

____________________________________________________________________________________________
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR DEFENDANTS TO RESPOND TO
COMPLAINT; Case No. 2:15-cv-00538-GEB-CMK
3