Aspic Engineering and Construction Company v. ECC Centcom Constructors LLC et al

Filing 21

ORDER by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denying 16 Stipulation Extending Time for Defendants to File Response and Setting Hearing. Updated Stipulation filed by 2/24/17. Compliance hearing set for Friday, 3/3/2017 09:01 AM in Courtroom 1, 4th Floor, Oakland before Hon. Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/13/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ASPIC ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, Plaintiff, 8 9 10 11 Case No. 17-cv-00224-YGR ORDER DENYING STIPULATION EXTENDING TIME FOR DEFENDANTS TO FILE RESPONSE AND SETTING HEARING v. ECC CENTCOM CONSTRUCTORS LLC, ET IN SUPPORT FOR THE COURT AL., Re: Dkt. No. 16 United States District Court Northern District of California Defendants. 12 13 The Court is in receipt of the Parties’ Joint Stipulation Extending Time for Defendants to 14 File Response and Setting Hearing (“Stipulation”). (Dkt. No. 16). While the Court is not opposed 15 to the proposed briefing schedule, it does not believe that it can agree with paragraph 7 that the 16 Court shall “correct, modify or vacate the judgment that was entered in the Superior Court to 17 conform with the decision of this Court.” (Dkt. No. 16 at 3.) See, e.g., Carvalho v. Equifax Info. 18 Servs., LLC, 629 F.3d 876, 887 (9th Cir. 2010) (“After removal, the federal court takes the case up 19 where the State court left it off . . . . Consequently, an order entered by a state court should be 20 treated as though it had been validly rendered in the federal proceeding.” (internal quotation marks 21 and citations omitted)); Resolution Trust Corp. v. BVS Dev., Inc., 42 F.3d 1206, 1211-12 (9th Cir. 22 1994) (“It is settled that a federal court must take a case as it finds it on removal, requiring a 23 district court to treat a prior state judgment as though it had been validly rendered in a federal 24 proceeding.” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)); Butner v. Neustadter, 324 F.2d 25 783, 785-86 (9th Cir. 1963) (“The federal court takes the case as it finds it on removal and treats 26 everything that occurred in the state court as if it had taken place in federal court.”) 27 Here, despite the language of the Stipulation, it appears that the state court’s order entering 28 1 judgment on the arbitration award stated that respondents/defendants responded. Then, they 2 attempted to move to vacate the judgment in the state court by an ex parte motion, but the ex parte 3 motion was denied because it needed to be filed as a noticed motion. Rather than file a noticed 4 motion, respondents/defendants removed. 5 Given the current procedural posture of this action, the parties’ Stipulation is DENIED. By 6 February 24, 2017, the parties must file an updated stipulation. The Court SETS a compliance 7 hearing for Friday, March 3, 2017 at 9:01 a.m. regarding submission of the updated stipulation. 8 If compliance is complete, the compliance hearing may be vacated and the parties need not appear. 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 Dated: February 13, 2017 ______________________________________ YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?