Global Aerospace (North America), Inc. et al v. Skyview Aviation LLC et al

Filing 7

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 6/8/2017 ORDERING that the time for Defendant Skyview Aviation LLC to file and serve its responsive pleading to the Complaint is EXTENDED to and including 7/10/2017, an additional thirty (30) days from the current 6/9/2017 response date. (Zignago, K.)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ROBERT E. DAVIES, ESQ. / SBN 106810 rdavies@donahuedavies.com STEPHEN J. MACKEY, ESQ. / SBN 131203 smackey@donahuedavies.com MARY A. STEWART, ESQ. / SBN 106758 mstewart@donahuedavies.com GREGORY A. NELSON, ESQ. / SBN 274926 gnelson@donahuedavies.com DONAHUE • DAVIES LLP P.O. BOX 277010 Sacramento, CA 95827 Telephone: (916) 817-2900 Facsimile: (916) 817-2644 Attorneys for Defendant, SKYVIEW AVIATION LLC UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SACRAMENTO DIVISION 11 -o0o- 12 13 14 15 GLOBAL AEROSPACE (NORTH AMERICA), INC., a Delaware Corporation; CIRRUS DESIGN CORPORATION dba CIRRUS AIRCRAFT, a Minnesota Corporation, 18 19 20 STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT (LOCAL RULE 144); ORDER ON STIPULATION Plaintiffs, 16 17 Case No. 2:17-CV-00147-JAM-KJN Complaint Filed: January 23, 2017 Trial Date: Not Scheduled v. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED SKYVIEW AVIATION LLC, a California Limited Liability Company and DOES 1-50, Defendants. 21 RECITALS 22 1. Plaintiffs Global Aerospace (North America), Inc., a Delaware Corporation and Cirrus 23 Design Corporation dba Cirrus Aircraft, a Minnesota Corporation are represented by 24 attorneys Shalem A. Massey and Dylan S. Kornbluth of BRYAN CAVE LLP. 25 2. Defendant Skyview Aviation LLC is represented by attorneys Robert E. Davies, Stephen 26 J. Mackey, Mary A. Stewart and Gregory A. Nelson of DONAHUE DAVIES LLP. 27 28 1 STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT (LOCAL RULE 144); [PROPOSED] ORDER ON STIPULATION; JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 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 3. On or about January 23, 2017, Plaintiffs electronically filed their Complaint in the aboveentitled matter. 4. On or about April 22, 2017, service of process was affected upon Defendant Skyview Aviation LLC. 5. Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 15, Defendant Skyview Aviation LLC’s responsive pleading to the Complaint was initially due to be filed and served on or before May 12, 2017. 6. On May 5, 2017, counsel for Plaintiffs and Defendant Skyview Aviation stipulated to extend Defendant Skyview Aviation’s time to respond to the Complaint to and including June 9, 2017, an additional twenty-eight (28) days from the original May 12, 2017 response date, as provided for in Local Rule 144. 7. The parties have been actively pursuing settlement discussions in this case and would like additional time to continue these discussions, prior to Defendant Skyview Aviation having to file its responsive pleading. 8. Subject to the Court’s approval, the parties hereto stipulate and agree that Defendant Skyview Aviation’s time to file and serve its responsive pleading shall be extended an additional thirty (30) days from the current June 9, 2017 response date, and that Defendant’s responsive pleading will be due to be filed and served on or before July 10, 2017. 9. The parties agree that this additional extension of time will best serve the parties’ interests by allowing them additional time to pursue settlement negotiations. 10. Pursuant to Local Rule 144, the parties request that the Court issue the proposed order on this stipulation of the parties, in order to allow the parties time to continue their on-going settlement discussions. STIPULATION The parties do now hereby agree and stipulate as follows: 27 28 2 STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT (LOCAL RULE 144); [PROPOSED] ORDER ON STIPULATION; JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 1 2 3 1. The time for Defendant Skyview Aviation LLC to file and serve its responsive pleading to the Complaint is extended to and including July 10, 2017, an additional thirty (30) days from the current June 9, 2017 response date. 4 5 IT IS SO STIPULATED. BRYAN CAVE LLP 6 7 Dated: June 8, 2017 By:__/S/ Dylan S. Kornbluth_____________ Shalem A. Massey, Esq. Dylan S. Kornbluth, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiffs, GLOBAL AEROSPACE (NORTH AMERICA), INC., a Delaware Corporation and CIRRUS DESIGN CORPORATION dba CIRRUS AIRCRAFT, a Minnesota Corporation Dated: June 8, 2017 DONAHUE DAVIES LLP 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 By: /S/ Robert E. Davies Robert E. Davies Stephen J. Mackey, Esq. Mary A. Stewart, Esq. Gregory A. Nelson, Esq. Attorneys for Defendant, SKYVIEW AVIATION LLC 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT (LOCAL RULE 144); [PROPOSED] ORDER ON STIPULATION; JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 1 ORDER ON STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT Pursuant to the foregoing Stipulation of the parties for extension of time for Defendant Skyview Aviation to respond to Complaint, and as provided for in Local Rule 144, it is hereby ordered that: The time for Defendant Skyview Aviation LLC to file and serve its responsive pleading to the Complaint is extended to and including July 10, 2017, an additional thirty (30) days from the current June 9, 2017 response date. IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 11 12 Dated: June 8, 2017 /s/ John A. Mendez_____________ John A. Mendez United States District Court Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT (LOCAL RULE 144); [PROPOSED] ORDER ON STIPULATION; JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

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?