Hoa v. Cate et al

Filing 145

STIPULATION AND ORDER. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 7/30/14. (bpf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/30/2014)

1
2
3
4

JOHN F. GEARY, ESQ. SBN 137777
RAYMOND J. FULLERTON. SBN 219264
ROBERT W. HENKELS, ESQ. SBN 255410
GEARY, SHEA, O’DONNELL, GRATTAN & MITCHELL, P.C.
37 Old Courthouse Square, Fourth Floor
Santa Rosa, California 95404
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile:
707/545-1876

5
6

Attorneys for Defendants
DAVID F. LOPEZ, T. GREGORY STAGNITTO;
BRIDGE TRANSPORT, STAG LEASING INC.

7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
PAUL HOA, an individual,

CASE NO.: CV 12 2078 EMC

11
Plaintiff,

SECOND STIPULATION TO EXTEND
TIME TO ANSWER CROSS-CLAIM FOR
INDEMNITY; ORDER THEREON

12
v.
13
RICHARD RILEY, an individual; et. al.
14
Defendants.
15
16

Pursuant to Northern District Local Rule 6-1, cross-plaintiffs RICHARD RILEY,

17

RAYMOND MATEUCCI, DAVID MOORE, RONALD CHAN,TAMMY FOSS, THOMAS

18

ALIOTO, and GEORGE MOON (“Cross-Plaintiffs”) and cross-defendants DAVID F. LOPEZ, T.

19

GREGORY STAGNITTO, BRIDGE TRANSPORT, and STAG LEASING INC (“Cross-

20

Defendants”) , through their respective counsel, agree and stipulate as follows:

21
22
23
24
25
LAW OFFICES OF

GEARY,
SHEA,
O’DONNELL,
GRATTAN &

MITCHELL
P.C.

1.

Cross-Plaintiffs filed a Cross-claim for Equitable Indemnity, Contribution, and

Declaratory Relief against Cross-Defendants on June 23, 2014.
2.

Cross-Plaintiffs and Cross-Defendants continue to evaluate the legal basis for

opposing claims for equitable indemnity given nature of allegations filed by Plaintiff PAUL HOA.
3.

In order to allow Cross-Defendants sufficient time to evaluate Cross-Claim and for

26

parties to meet and confer as to same, and given lack of prejudice and current schedule, Cross-

27

Plaintiffs and Cross-Defendants hereby agree to extend Cross-Defendants’ time to respond to the

28

Cross-Claim to August 4, 2014.
________________________________________________________________________________
-1Stipulation to Extend Time to Respond to Cross-Claim

4.

1
2

The Court has set this matter for a further CMC on October 9, 2014. Thus, this

extension of time does not alter any other dates or events already fixed by the Court.

3
4

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

5

DATED: July 28, 2014

6
7
8

KAMALA D. HARRIS
Attorney General of California
PATRICK R. MCKINNEY
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
_____/s/________________________________
MANEESH SHARMA
JAMES J. JIRN
Attorneys for Defendants and Cross-Plaintiffs
RICHARD RILEY, RAYMOND MATEUCCI,
DAVID MOORE, RONALD CHAN,TAMMY FOSS,
THOMAS ALIOTO, and GEORGE MOON

9
10
11
12
DATED: July 28, 2014

13

GEARY SHEA O’DONNELL
GRATTAN & MITCHELL, PC

14
15

_____/s/_______________________________
ROBERT W. HENKELS
Attorneys for Defendants
DAVID F. LOPEZ, T. GREGORY STAGNITTO;
BRIDGE TRANSPORT, and STAG LEASING
INC.

16
17
18

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED

20

GEARY,
SHEA,
O’DONNELL,
GRATTAN &

MITCHELL
P.C.

26
27

S

R NIA

FO

ER

H

LAW OFFICES OF

RT

25

_________________________________________
United States District Court Judge
n
M. Che
Edward
Judge

NO

24

DERED

O OR
IT IS S

LI

23

July 30, 2014

UNIT
ED

22

Date:

RT
U
O

21

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

A

19

N

D IS T IC T
R

OF

C

28
________________________________________________________________________________
-2Stipulation to Extend Time to Respond to Cross-Claim