Steffen v. Union Pacific Railroad Company et al
Filing
27
STIPULATION and ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 2/8/17 ORDERING that Defendant TIM PAXIN's PACIFIC EXCAVATION, INC. erroneously sued as PACIFIC EXCAVATION, INC.'s deadline to respond to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint is 2/27/2017. (Mena-Sanchez, L)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Jennifer K. Stinnett, Esq. (SBN 228209)
Marysia S. Okreglak, Esq. (SBN 1991348)
CHRISTENSEN EHRET LLP
2485 Natomas Park Drive, Suite 315
Sacramento, CA 95833
Tel.: (916) 443-6909 / Fax: (916) 313-0645
jstinnett@christensenlaw.com
mokreglak@christensenlaw.com
Attorneys for Defendant
TIM PAXIN’S PACIFIC EXCAVATION, INC.
erroneous sued as PACIFIC EXCAVATION, INC.
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
CHRISTENSEN EHRET LLP
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
KATIE M. STEFFEN,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
UNION PACFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, a )
Delaware Corporation, BRIAN L. KLINE, and )
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 2:15-CV-01025-TLN-KJN
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO
EXTEND TIME FOR DEFENDANT TIM
PAXIN’S PACIFIC EXCAVATION, INC.
erroneous sued as PACIFIC
EXCAVATION, INC. TO RESPOND TO
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
First Amended Complaint Filed:
January 6, 2017
Pursuant to Local Rule 144 of the United States District Court, Eastern District, all parties
hereby stipulate and request that the Court enter an order extending Defendant TIM PAXIN’S
PACIFIC EXCAVATION, INC. erroneously sued as PACIFIC EXCAVACTION, INC.
(“Defendant”) to file an answer or other responsive pleading by approximately twenty (20) days.
1.
On or about January 6, 2017, Plaintiff KATIE M. STEFFEN (“Plaintiff”) filed a
First Amended Complaint, adding two Doe defendants, including Defendant.
2.
An executed Summons indicates this Defendant was served on January 17, 2017.
3.
Counsel for Defendant was retained only days before a responsive pleading was
due and has not the opportunity to review the file and prepare a responsive pleading.
-1STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND TIME FOR DEFENDANT TIM PAXIN’S PACIFIC
EXCAVATION, INC. erroneous sued as PACIFIC EXCAVATION, INC.
TO RESPOND TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1
4.
In order to allow Defendant sufficient time to prepare a responsive pleading,
2
counsel for Defendant and the parties hereby agree to extend the time for Defendant to file an
3
answer or other responsive pleading to February 27, 2017.
4
5.
5
This Stipulation can be executed in counterparts and copies of signatures will be treated as
Therefore, the parties respectfully request that the Court so order.
6
originals.
7
IT IS SO STIPULATED:
8
9
DATED: February 7, 2017 DREYER BABICH BUCCOLAR WOOD, et al.
10
CHRISTENSEN EHRET LLP
11
By:
12
/s/
HANK G. GREENBLATT, Esq.
Attorneys for Plaintiff
KATIE M. STEFFEN
13
14
DATED: February 7, 2017 CHRISTENSEN EHRET LLP
15
16
By:
17
18
/s/
JENNIFER K. STINNETT, Esq.
MARYSIA S. OKREGLAK, Esq.
Attorneys for Defendant
TIM PAXIN’S PACIFIC EXCAVATION, INC.
erroneous sued as PACIFIC EXCAVATION, INC.
19
20
DATED: February 7, 2017 UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD LAW DEPT.
21
22
23
24
By:
/s/
JOHN DANIEL FEENEY, Esq.
Attorneys for Defendant
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY
25
26
27
28
-2STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND TIME FOR DEFENDANT TIM PAXIN’S PACIFIC
EXCAVATION, INC. erroneous sued as PACIFIC EXCAVATION, INC.
TO RESPOND TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1
ORDER
2
Pursuant to the Stipulation of all parties and good cause shown, Defendant TIM PAXIN’S
3
PACIFIC EXCAVATION, INC. erroneously sued as PACIFIC EXCAVATION, INC.’S deadline
4
to respond to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint is February 27, 2017.
5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
6
7
DATED: February 8, 2017
8
9
Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge
10
CHRISTENSEN EHRET LLP
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND TIME FOR DEFENDANT TIM PAXIN’S PACIFIC
EXCAVATION, INC. erroneous sued as PACIFIC EXCAVATION, INC.
TO RESPOND TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?