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)

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