KFD Enterprises Inc v. City of Eureka

Filing 158

ORDER APPROVING STIPULATION WITH RESPECT TO DEFENDANT CITY OF EUREKA'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AGAINST DEFENDANT R.R. STREET & CO. INC. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on November 25, 2009. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/25/2009)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
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

HICKS THOMAS LLP

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 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AGAINST DEFENDANT R.R. STREET & CO. INC. [Civil L.R. 7-12]

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, Eureka's Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 140, filed Nov. 9, 2009) is, visą-vis Street, substantively identical to Eureka's First Amended Complaint (Doc. 46, filed July 24, 2009); and WHEREAS, Eureka and Street have previously stipulated--and this Court has previously so ordered pursuant to stipulation (Doc. 101, filed Sept. 8, 2009)--that Paragraph 92 of Eureka's First Amended Complaint (claiming punitive damages) is stricken as to Street on certain terms and conditions;
{00133445.DOC}

1 No. 3:08-cv-04571-MMC Stipulation re Defendant City of Eureka's Second Amended Complaint Against Defendant R.R. Street & Co. Inc.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
8001 Folsom Boulevard, Suite 100 Sacramento, California 95826 Telephone: [phone]

THEREFORE, Eureka and Street stipulate that (1) Street's answer to Eureka's First Amended Complaint (Doc. 99, filed Sept. 4, 2009)

shall be deemed responsive to Eureka's Second Amended Complaint; and (2) Paragraph 102 of Eureka's Second Amended Complaint is stricken as to Street on

the same terms and conditions as was previously stricken Paragraph 92 of Eureka's First Amended Complaint. Dated: November 23, 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

HICKS THOMAS LLP

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
{00133445.DOC}

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

25 Dated: November _____, 2009

MAXINE M. CHESNEY United States District Judge

2 No. 3:08-cv-04571-MMC Stipulation re Defendant City of Eureka's Second Amended Complaint Against Defendant R.R. Street & Co. Inc.