Tarantinos, Inc. et al v. Conseco Life Insurance Company et al

Filing 24

STIPULATION AND ORDER re Extension of Time for Defendant John S. Leipsic, Inc. to File Responsive Pleading to Complaint. Signed by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong, on 6/30/09. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/30/2009) Modified on 7/1/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
KLINEDINST PC 801 K STREET, STE. 2800 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814

Natalie P. Vance, Bar No. 206708 Reina G. Minoya, Bar No. 227885 KLINEDINST PC 801 K Street, Suite 2800 Sacramento, California 95814 [phone]/FAX [phone] [e-mail] [e-mail] Attorneys for Defendant JOHN S. LEIPSIC, INC.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION TARANTINOS, INC., and MACMARIN, INC., Plaintiffs, v. CONSECO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, JOHN S. LEIPSIC, INC., and DOES ONE through TEN, Defendants. Case No. CV 09 1974 SBA Electronic File Only STIPULATION AND ORDER RE: EXTENSION OF TIME FOR DEFENDANT JOHN S. LEIPSIC, INC. TO FILE RESPONSIVE PLEADING TO COMPLAINT
Judge: Hon. Saundra Brown Armstrong Complaint Filed: May 5, 2009 (Notice of Removal) Trial Date: None set

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Plaintiffs Tarantinos, Inc. and Macmarin, Inc. and Defendant John S. Leipsic, Inc., by and through their respective attorneys of record, stipulate and agree as follows: 1. Plaintiffs originally filed this action in the Superior Court of the State of

California, County of San Francisco on April 3, 2009 (Case No. CGC-09-486939). 2. Defendant Conseco Life Insurance Company filed a notice of removal to Federal

Court on May 5, 2009 based on fraudulent joinder. 3. 15, 2009. 4. Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Remand on June 3, 2009, the hearing for which was Defendant John S. Leipsic, Inc. was allegedly served with the complaint on May

scheduled for July 7, 2009.

-1STIPULATION AND ORDER RE: EXTENSION OF TIME FOR DEFENDANT JOHN S. LEIPSIC, INC. TO FILE RESPONSIVE PLEADING TO COMPLAINT CV 09 1974 SBA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
KLINEDINST PC 801 K STREET, STE. 2800 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814

5.

On June 8, 2009, Defendant John S. Leipsic, Inc. requested from Plaintiffs an

extension of time to file its responsive pleading until after the hearing on Plaintiffs' motion to remand, as the motion may result in the case being transferred back to state court. Plaintiffs' counsel agreed to consider the request and in the meantime granted a fifteen-day extension of time to respond to until June 30, 2009. 6. 2009. IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the attorneys of record for Plaintiffs and Defendant John S. Leipsic, Inc., and pursuant to the Local Rules of Practice in Civil Proceedings before the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Local Rules 6-1 and 7-12, that Defendant John S. Leipsic, Inc.'s time to file a responsive pleading to Plaintiffs' complaint is extended until two weeks after the order granting/denying Plaintiffs' motion to remand. The requested time modification would not have an effect on the schedule for this case, and will not alter the date of any event or deadline already fixed by the Court. IT IS SO STIPULATED. Dated: June 25, 2009 COOPER, WHITE & COOPER, LLP By: /s/ Scott M. McLeod Stephen Kaus Scott M. McLeod Attorneys for Plaintiffs TARANTINOS, INC. and MACMARIN, INC. Plaintiffs' hearing on the motion to remand was rescheduled for September 22,

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Dated: June 25, 2009

KLINEDINST PC By: /s/ Reina G. Minoya Natalie P. Vance Reina G. Minoya Attorneys for Defendant JOHN S. LEIPSIC, INC.

///

/// ///
-2STIPULATION AND ORDER RE: EXTENSION OF TIME FOR DEFENDANT JOHN S. LEIPSIC, INC. TO FILE RESPONSIVE PLEADING TO COMPLAINT CV 09 1974 SBA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
KLINEDINST PC 801 K STREET, STE. 2800 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814

ORDER

The Court having read and considered the stipulation entered into by and between Plaintiffs and Defendant John S. Leipsic, Inc., and good cause appearing therefore; PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED that Defendant John S.
Leipsic, Inc.'s time to file a responsive pleading to Plaintiffs' complaint is extended until two weeks after the order granting/denying Plaintiffs' motion to remand. The requested time modification will not have an effect on the schedule for this case, and will not alter the date of any event or deadline already fixed by the Court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT Defendant's opposition to the motion to remand shall be filed no later than two (2) weeks after the date this Order is filed. Plaintiff's reply shall be due one (1) week thereafter. The hearing date on the motion to remand shall remain unchanged.

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

DATED: June 30, 2009

__________________________________________ Judge of the Northern District of California

-3STIPULATION AND ORDER RE: EXTENSION OF TIME FOR DEFENDANT JOHN S. LEIPSIC, INC. TO FILE RESPONSIVE PLEADING TO COMPLAINT CV 09 1974 SBA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
KLINEDINST PC 801 K STREET, STE. 2800 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814

795475v1

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
-4STIPULATION AND ORDER RE: EXTENSION OF TIME FOR DEFENDANT JOHN S. LEIPSIC, INC. TO FILE RESPONSIVE PLEADING TO COMPLAINT CV 09 1974 SBA