Fotinos v. Sills et al

Filing 49

ORDER by Chief Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James granting 47 Stipulation to Vacate Default of Defendnat David Boyes. (rmm2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/9/2012)

Download PDF
2 3 4 5 STEPHEN J. SHERMAN, (State Bar No. 142358) HALVERSON & ASSOCIATES 57 Post Street. Suite 900 San Francisco. CA 94104 Telephone (415) 986-7300 Facsimile (415) 398-8715 Attorneys for Defendant DAVID BOYES 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 OAKLAND DIVISION MICHELLE FOTINOS, individually and as guardian ad litem on behalf of R. F .. a minor child. ) ) Case No. CV -12-03828 MEJ ) ) STIPULATION AND lei@ II ) ORDER TO VACATE DEFAULT OF ) Plaintiff, ) DEFENDANT DAVID BOYES ) v. ) Judge: Hon. Marie-Elena James Chief Magistrate Judge ) LAURIE SILLS, in her individual and official ) ) capacities, DAVID BOYES. and DOES I ) through I 0, inclusive, ) ) Defendants. _________________________ )) 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 STIPIIUTION AND (PROPOSED( ORDER TO VA(:An: DU'AIII.T m· DEFF.NIJANT IJAVIIJ BOVt:S Caso No. CV-I2~J8l8 MEJ STIPULATION 2 3 Plaintiff MICHELLE FOTINOS, individually and as guardian ad litem on behalf of R.F .. 4 a minor child and Defendant David Boyes, by and through their respective counsel, hereby enter 5 into this stipulation to vacate any default entered into against Defendant BOYES and allow 6 Defendant to file a responsive pleading to Plaintiffs' Complaint. 7 8 WHEREAS, on or about July 23.2012. Plaintiff filed her Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial in this matter; 9 WHEREAS, on the afternoon of October 12.2012, Stephen Sherman, counsel for 10 Defendant, left a detailed telephone message for Patricia Barry, counsel for Plaintiff. indicating II 12 13 14 that Defendant had recently retained his firm as counsel. inquiring about the status of service, and requesting a brief continuance in order to file a timely responsive pleading to Plaintiff's Complaint; WHEREAS, Plaintiffs' counsel did not receive the telephone message from Defendant's 15 16 counsel until October 13, 20 12; WHEREAS, on the evening of October 12, 2012, following the telephone message from 17 18 Defendant's counsel, Plaintitrs counsel prepared and submitted to this Court documents in 19 support of an entry of default against Defendant; WHEREAS, on November I, 2012, this Court is scheduled to hear a Motion to Dismiss 20 21 Plaintiff's Complaint by Defendant LAURIE SILLS and Plaintiff's opposition has included a 22 request for leave to amend her Complaint; 23 WHEREAS, the interests of justice and judicial economy would be served to allow 24 Defendant BOYES to file a responsive pleading to Plaintitrs Complaint and such a response 25 should await this Court's determination of the pending Motion to Dismiss; 26 27 Ill Ill 28 !iTIPIILATION AND fPROPOSEDf ORDt:R TO VACATF. DEFAIII.T OF DEFF.NDANT DAVID BOYF.S Case No. CV-12..03818 MEJ TilE PARTIF.S HE REilY STIPULATE to the following: 2 The Entry of Dt:fault Against Defendant David Boyes be vacated by this Court. Defendant David Boyes be allowed to tile a n:sponsive pleading to l'laintitl's 4 original ( 'omplaim v.ithin ~e-.:n (7) days of this Court's det:ision to deny the pending Motion to Dismis~. , Defendant David Hnyes he allowed tile a timely responsive pleading to Plaintiffs !'irs\ ,\n1.:ndcd Complaint in the event this Court gmnts the pending Motion to Dismiss with R leave to amend. 9 Dated: October ::J 2012 HALVERSON &_f\SBOCIATliS 10 II 12 13 ). Dated: O.:toher :__!.:. :!0 12 I-I . ~[ 16 17 20 :?I 2::! ,:...J/L'L--,. Patricia J. Harr). Es4. Attorneys lor Plaintift=l MICHELLF I'OTINOS I I 1M 19 7 .--; ·{ tc.<<_',"'- _;. .iJ .~ r: '" '- I~ I I II I ORDER ll<l\"Jilg considered the above stipulation of the parties and good cause appearing. IT IS SO OROI·:RED. 1' -·' November 9 2012 14 Dated: October ___ , 1012 2~ 261 Hon. Marie-Elena James-· Chief Magistrate Judge ~: I ISTIPl Ii L>\TIO~ .\.'IV (PROPOSE OJ ORDER TO VACATE DHAl'LT Ot"flf.FF:NDANT DAVID BOYES

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?