KFD Enterprises Inc v. City of Eureka

Filing 101

ORDER WITH RESPECT TO DEFENDANT CITY OF EUREKA'S CLAIM FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES AGAINST DEFENDANT R.R. STREET & CO., INC. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on September 8, 2009. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/8/2009)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
8001 Folsom Boulevard, Suite 100 Sacramento, California 95826 Telephone: [phone]

Eric Grant (Bar No. 151064) [e-mail] Hicks Thomas LLP 8001 Folsom Boulevard, Suite 100 Sacramento, California 95826 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Counsel for Defendant R.R. STREET & CO. INC.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 KFD ENTERPRISES, INC., a California corporation dba Norman's Dry Cleaner, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF EUREKA, et al., Defendants, AND ALL RELATED CROSS-CLAIMS AND THIRD-PARTY CLAIMS. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 3:08-cv-04571-MMC
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER WITH RESPECT TO DEFENDANT CITY OF EUREKA'S CLAIM FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES AGAINST DEFENDANT R.R. STREET & CO. INC. [Civil L.R. 7-12]

HICKS THOMAS LLP

Pursuant to Civil L.R. 7-12, Defendant City of Eureka ("Eureka") and Defendant R.R. Street & Co. Inc. ("Street") hereby stipulate and request judicial action as follows: WHEREAS, Paragraph 92 of Eureka's First Amended Complaint (Doc. 46, filed July 24, 2009) alleges that "[i]n causing the public nuisance alleged herein, Defendants [including Street] acted with oppression, fraud or malice, and in wanton disregard of the health and safety of those impacted by its public nuisance, including Eureka"; WHEREAS, in the absence of the stipulation herein, Street would move to strike Paragraph 92 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f)(2), thereby delaying Street's answer to Eureka's complaint; and
{00132006.DOC}

1 No. 3:08-cv-04571-MMC Stipulation re Defendant City of Eureka's Claim for Punitive Damages Against Defendant R.R. Street & Co. Inc.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
8001 Folsom Boulevard, Suite 100 Sacramento, California 95826 Telephone: [phone]

WHEREAS, avoiding such a motion and having Street answer Eureka's complaint would promote the just, efficient, speedy, and economical determination of this action; THEREFORE, Eureka and Street stipulate that (1) (2) Paragraph 92 of Eureka's First Amended Complaint is stricken as to Street; such striking shall be without prejudice to Eureka's right, following investigation

and discovery, to seek leave of this Court, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), to amend its operative complaint to assert a claim for punitive damages against Street; and (3) so long as such motion is filed and heard consistent with the deadlines imposed by

this Court for the filing and hearing of pretrial motions, Street shall not oppose Eureka's motion on the basis of untimeliness or waiver or similar doctrine. Dated: September 3, 2009. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Eric Grant Eric Grant Hicks Thomas LLP Counsel for Defendant R.R. STREET & CO. INC. (The filer hereby attests that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from the signatory below.) DAVIDOVITZ & BENNETT LLP /s/ Charles Bolcom MORIS DAVIDOVITZ CHARLES BOLCOM Attorneys for Defendant, Counter-Complainant, and Third-Party Plaintiff CITY OF EUREKA

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

HICKS THOMAS LLP

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

8 Dated: September _____, 2009

MAXINE M. CHESNEY United States District Judge

{00132006.DOC}

2 No. 3:08-cv-04571-MMC Stipulation re Defendant City of Eureka's Claim for Punitive Damages Against Defendant R.R. Street & Co. Inc.