Northern California River Watch v. Ecodyne Corportation

Filing 108

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James granting 107 Stipulation Extending Deadline for Defendant Fluor Corporation to respond to Fourth Amended Complaint. (rmm2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/28/2013)

l
J

J
J

l

I

2
3
4

5

I
I
I

l
l
f

6

Thomas M. Donnelly (State Bar No. 136546)
tmdonnelly@jonesday .com
Daniel L. Corbett (State Bar No. 2861 03)
dcorbett@jonesday .com
JONES DAY
555 California Street, 26th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone:
+1.415.626.3939
Facsimile:
+1.415.875.5700
Attorneys for Defendant
FLUOR CORPORATION

7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

II
12
13

Northern California River Watch, a
501(c)(3) non-profit Public Benefit
Corporation,
Plaintiff,

14
15
16
17

v.

Case No. 3:10-cv-05105 MEJ

STIPULATION AND [W~
ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINE.
FOR DEFENDANT FLUOR
CORPORATION TO RESPOND TO
FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT

Fluor Corporation,
Defendant.

18
19

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-2(a), Plaintiff Northern California River Watch

20

("NCRW"), and Defendant Fluor Corporation ("Fluor"), hereby stipulate to extend the deadline

21

by which Fluor must respond to the Fourth Amended Complaint by thirty (30) days, and jointly

22

request that the Court enter the Proposed Order below. NCRW filed its Fourth Amended

23

Complaint on June 24, 2013, and thus Fluor's current deadline to respond (including the three

24

days added for electronic service) under Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 15(a)(3) and 6(d) is July 11, 2013.

25

Under this Stipulation, Fluor's response to the Fourth Amended Complaint would be due no later

26

than August 12, 2013.

27
28

I

l
I
1

The parties are jointly requesting this extension of time for Fluor to respond to the Fourth
Amended Complaint because they have decided to initiate settlement negotiations, and would like
STIP AND PROPOSED ORDER EXTENDING
DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO 4TH AMENDED
COMPLAINT (No. 3:10-cv-05105)

to focus their efforts on attempting to settle the case rather than preparing responsive pleadings.
2

The requested extension will not alter the date of any event or any deadline already fixed by any

3

Court order. This is the first request for an extension of time for Fluor to respond to the Fourth

4

Amended Complaint. And this requested extension will not affect the case schedule, given that

5

the Court has not yet set a trial date or any discovery or motion cut-offs.

6

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. I also attest,

7

pursuant to Civil Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), that I have obtained concurrence in the filing ofthis

8

Stipulation and Proposed Order from Jack Silver, counsel for NCRW.

9

Dated: June 27, 2013

Jones Day

IO
II

By: Is/ Thomas M. Donnelly
Thomas M. Donnelly

I2

Counsel for Defendant
FLUOR CORPORATION

I3
I4

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

I5

Dated: June 27, 2013

Jones Day

I6
I7

By: Is/ Thomas M. Donnelly
Thomas M. Donnelly

I8

Counsel for Defendant
FLUOR CORPORATION

I9
20

2I
22
23

24
25

Dated: June 27, 2013

Law Office of Jack Silver
By: Is/ Jack Silver
Jack Silver
Counsel for Plaintiff
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA RIVER
WATCH

26
27

28
-2-

STIP AND PROPOSED ORDER EXTENDING
DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO 4TH AMENDED
COMPLAINT (No. 3:10-cv-05105)

[~~ORDER

2
3

Having considered the foregoing Stipulation, and good cause appearing therefor, the Court

4

hereby Orders that Fluor's response to the Fourth Amended Complaint shall be filed no later than

5

August 12, 2013.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
7
8

Dated:

~, 2013

9
10
II

12
SFJ-830556v1

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

I
I

I

-3-

STIP AND PROPOSED ORDER EXTENDING
DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO 4TH AMENDED
COMPLAINT (No. 3:10-cv-05105)