Camp Richardson Resort, Inc. v. Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company

Filing 20

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 1/26/2016 ORDERING that defendant Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company may have up to and including 2/17/2016 to file an answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff Camp Richardson Resort, Inc.'s First Amended Complaint. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

JAMES C. NIELSEN (111889)
[e-mail]
DANIEL N. KATIBAH (293251)
[e-mail]
NIELSEN, HALEY & ABBOTT LLP
100 Smith Ranch Road, Suite 350
San Rafael, California 94903
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendant,
PHILADELPHIA INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY

9
10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12
13
14

CAMP RICHARDSON RESORT, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.

15
16
17
18

PHILADELPHIA INDEMNITY
INSURANCE COMPANY;
Defendant.

Civil Action No.: 2:15-CV-01101-TLNAC
FIRST STIPULATION TO EXTEND
TIME TO RESPOND TO FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT; ORDER
(L.R. 144)
HONORABLE
TROY L. NUNLEY

19
20
21
22
23
24

TO THE CLERK OF THE ABOVE-ENTITLED COURT:
Under Eastern District Local Rule 144(a) (Fed. Rules Civ. Proc., rule 6), the parties

25

hereby stipulate that Defendant Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company may have up to

26

and including February 17, 2016 to file an answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff Camp

27

Richardson Resort, Inc.’s First Amended Complaint. This is the third such overall

28

extension of time in this case, but the first such extension in connection with Camp
1

FIRST STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; ORDER

1
2

Richardson’s First Amended Complaint.
Philadelphia seeks this extension because it intends to file a Motion to Dismiss

3

under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The additional two weeks is

4

justified because the legal arguments in Philadelphia’s motion and inherent in this dispute

5

are at once delicate and complex and will take more time to appropriately craft than the

6

standard 21 days. Additionally, Philadelphia’s two defense attorneys working on this

7

matter have been, and in the immediate term will continue to be, unable to devote sufficient

8

time to this matter as they are engaged with two pre-existing appellate matters which carry

9

with them deadlines that cannot be rescheduled and which include travelling to Fresno for

10

oral argument. Collectively, these matters have prevented Philadelphia’s attorneys from

11

devoting the necessary time to the preparation of their initial motion. Camp Richardson

12

does not object to Philadelphia’s request for this extension.

13
14

January 26, 2016

BANKS & WATSON

15

By:

16
17

/s/
ROBERTA LINDSEY SCOTT
Attorneys for Plaintiff
CAMP RICHARDSON RESORT, INC.

18
19

January 26, 2016

NIELSEN, HALEY & ABBOTT LLP

20

By:

21
22

/s/
DANIEL N. KATIBAH
Attorneys for Defendant
PHILADELPHIA INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY

23
24

In accordance with the foregoing stipulation IT IS SO ORDERED.
25
26

Dated: January 26, 2016
27
Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge

28
2

FIRST STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; ORDER