Prentice v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation

Filing 30

ORDER VACATING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS and GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST TO FILE THEIR SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT by Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James vacating hearing 25 Motion to Dismiss; granting 29 Stipulation (rmm2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/17/2013)

1 MAJORS & Fox

2
3
4
5

LLP

Frank J. Fox SBN139147(Ca.)
Lawrence J. Salisbury SBN179748(Ca.)
Andrew M. Greene SBN167386(Ca.)
401 West "A" Street, Suite 2350
San Diego, California 92101-7921
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Emails: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
[e-mail]

6
ATTORNEYS AGAINST ABUSE OF ELDERS
Mark Alan Redmond, Esq. SBN161520(Ca.)
Plaza Five-Fifty-Five
8 555 Capitol Mall, Suite 770
Sacramento, California 95814-4502
9 Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
10 Email: [e-mail]

7

11 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Nancy Prentice and Colin Haughin
12
13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

15

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

16 NANCY PRENTICE and COLIN HAUGHIN,

Case No. 3:12-cv-05856-MEJ

17

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER RE DEFENDANT NATIONAL
RAILROAD PASSENGER
CORPORATION'S MOTION TO DISMISS
PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED
COMPLAINT AND PLAINTIFFS NANCY
PRENTICE'S AND COLIN HAUGHIN'S
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs,
18

19 v.
20
NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER
21 CORPORATION dba AMTRAK, a District of
Columbia corporation,

22
23

Defendant.

Date:
Time:
Courtroom:
Judge:

August 1, 2013
10:00 a.m.
B, 151h Floor
Hon. Maria-Elena James

24 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___. Date Filed: November 15, 2012
25
26

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs Nancy Prentice and Colin Haughin (together, "Plaintiffs") filed

27 a first amended complaint on May 28, 2013, alleging facts that they believe support claims
28 for gross negligence and punitive damages; and
Stipulation and Order re Motion to Dismiss and Second Amended Complaint

3:12-cv-05856-MEJ

1

WHEREAS, Defendant National Railroad Passenger Corporation ("AMTRAK") filed

2 a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint (the "Motion to Dismiss") on
3 June 25, 2013 challenging the sufficiency of those allegations; and
4

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs believe that some of the arguments raised in that Motion to

5 Dismiss have merit and are more efficiently addressed by a further amendment to the
6 complaint and on that basis are willing to not oppose the Motion to Dismiss;
7

WHEREAS; Plaintiffs also only recently learned that AMTRAK is not the owner of

8 the infrastructure on which the accident giving rise to this complaint occurred and believe
9 that the owner, Union Pacific Railroad Company ("Union Pacific"), should be a party to this
10 action; and
11

WHEREAS, Defendants agree that a non-opposition to the Motion to Dismiss and a

12 stipulation to allow the filing of a second amended complaint to address issues raised by
13 the Motion to Dismiss and to name Union Pacific as a party to this action would be more
14 efficient for the parties and the Court;
15

NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereby stipulate:

16

1.

Plaintiffs will not file an opposition to the pending Motion to Dismiss;

17

2.

The Motion to Dismiss will be taken off calendar;

18

3.

Plaintiffs will file their second amended complaint in the form attached

19 hereto;
20

4.

Defendant shall have 15 days from the entry of this Order to respond to the

Auugust 1, 2013
21 second amended complaint. That response will be due on _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
22
23 DATED: July 16, 2013

MAJORS & FOX LLP

24

ATTORNEYS AGAINST ABUSE OF ELDERS

25
26

27
28

By: _ _ _...!..,ls~~.=L~a.!.!w.!.,;re~n~c~e;....:J~.=-'S7.a::.:.:l''-=·s=-b~ury~---Lawrence J. Salisbury
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Nancy Prentice and
Colin Haughin

M.uoRS & Fox u•

~~!'!:'!~~·:~~~i

San Diego, CA 92101

~=~<6~mfl.tJ~

-2-

------------,--,--.....,--,------,--------,--,------,---=---=-=-------:------:-::-------:---:-:-----:::-;-:::------=-:=:-::-::::-;-

Stipulation and Order reMotion to Dismiss and Second Amended Complaint

3:12-cv-05856-MEJ

1 DATED: July 16, 2013

MAJORS & FOX LLP

2

LOMBARDI, LOPER & CONANT, LLP

3
By: _ _ ____!_/;~s!J'K=a_,_,ra~A:....!:....::.A:..,=-be /=so=n..:__ _ _ __
7
7
Kara A. Abelson

4
5

Attorneys for Defendant National Railroad
Passenger Corporation

6

7

8

ORDER

9

WHEREAS, good cause exists for the relief requested herein, the Court hereby

10 makes the foregoing Stipulation the Order of this Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
12
13 Dated:
14

July 17, 103
Honorable Maria-Elena James
CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

M.uoas & Fox u.r

~~:~~~":t~~j;
Sao Diqo, CA 92101

~=~~,~~~h~J~

-

3-

Stipulation and Order re Motion to Dismiss and Second Amended Complaint

3: 12-cv-05856-MEJ