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

Filing 9

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 7/7/2017 ORDERING that the time for Defendant Skyview Aviation LLC to file and serve its responsive pleading to the Complaint is EXTENDED to and including 7/17/2017, an additional seven (7) days from the current 7/10/2017 response date. (Washington, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

ROBERT E. DAVIES, ESQ. / SBN 106810
[e-mail]
STEPHEN J. MACKEY, ESQ. / SBN 131203
[e-mail]
MARY A. STEWART, ESQ. / SBN 106758
[e-mail]
GREGORY A. NELSON, ESQ. / SBN 274926
[e-mail]
DONAHUE • DAVIES LLP
P.O. BOX 277010
Sacramento, CA 95827
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
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 FURTHER
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 FURTHER 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
27

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. On June 8, 2017, the Court issued an Order on Stipulation for Extension of Time to
Respond to Complaint, extending extend Defendant Skyview Aviation’s time to respond
to the Complaint to and including July 10, 2017.
8. The parties are continuing to actively pursue settlement discussions in this case and
would like an additional seven (7) days to continue these discussions, prior to Defendant
Skyview Aviation having to file its responsive pleading.
9. 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 seven (7) days from the current July 10, 2017 response date, and that
Defendant’s responsive pleading will be due to be filed and served on or before July 17,
2017.
10. The parties agree that this additional extension of time will best serve the parties’
interests by allowing them additional time to pursue settlement negotiations.
11. 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.

28
2
STIPULATION FOR FURTHER EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT (LOCAL RULE
144); [PROPOSED] ORDER ON STIPULATION; JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

1
2
3
4
5

STIPULATION
The parties do now hereby agree and stipulate as follows:
1. The time for Defendant Skyview Aviation LLC to file and serve its responsive pleading
to the Complaint is extended to and including July 17, 2017, an additional seven (7) days
from the current July 10, 2017 response date.

6
7

IT IS SO STIPULATED.
BRYAN CAVE LLP

8
9

Dated: July 7, 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: July 7, 2017

DONAHUE DAVIES LLP

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

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

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
STIPULATION FOR FURTHER 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 17, 2017, an additional seven (7) days from the
current July 10, 2017 response date.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

10
11
12

Dated: July 7, 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 FURTHER EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT (LOCAL RULE
144); [PROPOSED] ORDER ON STIPULATION; JURY TRIAL DEMANDED