Heim v. The Estate of Donald T. Heim, Maxine Heim et al
Filing
76
STIPULATION AND ORDER EXTENDING DEFENDANTS' TIME TO RESPOND. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 7/19/2011. (ejdlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/19/2011)
7
8
A
N
D
IS T RIC T
Attorneys for Defendants and Third Party Defendants
MULTIMATIC LLC and THE KIRRBERG CORPORATION,
formerly known as Multimatic Corporation, successor by merger
with Multimatic Dry Cleaning Machine Corporation
9
a
LI
ER
J . D av i l
R NIA
TED
H
6
d w a rd
J u d ge E
RT
5
GRAN
FO
S
4
UNIT
ED
3
RT
U
O
2
RICHARD A. DONGELL (SBN 128083)
(rdongell@dlflawyers.com)
THOMAS F. VANDENBURG (SBN 163446)
(tvandenburg@dlflawyers.com)
IAN P. CULVER (SBN 245106)
(iculver@dlflawyers.com)
DONGELL LAWRENCE FINNEY LLP
707 Wilshire Boulevard, 45th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017-3609
Telephone: (213) 943-6100
Facsimile: (213) 943-6101
NO
1
S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA
OF
C
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – SAN JOSE
11
12
MARK HEIM,
Honorable Edward J. Davila
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Case No.: 5:10-CV-03816 EJD
Plaintiff,
v.
THE ESTATE OF DONALD T. HEIM;
MAXINE HEIM; PROJECT ONE, a California
Limited Partnership; WILLIAM
BURGSTROM; ESTATE OF ERNIE WEBB;
CITY OF WATSONVILLE; MULTIMATIC
DRY CLEANING MACHINE
CORPORATION; MULTIMATIC
CORPORATION, as successor in interest to
Multimatic Dry Cleaning Machine Corporation;
MULTIMATIC LLC, a New Jersey Limited
Liability Company, as successor in interest to
Multimatic Corporation and Multimatic Dry
Cleaning Machine Corporation; THE
KIRRBERG CORPORATION, a New Jersey
Corporation, formerly known as Multimatic
Corporation; AMERICAN LAUNDRY
MACHINERY INC.; and DOES 1 through 20;
STIPULATION EXTENDING TIME OF
MULTIMATIC DRY CLEANING
MACHINE CORPORATION,
MULTIMATIC CORPORATION,
MULTIMATIC LLC, AND THE
KIRRBERG CORPORATION TO
RESPOND TO MAXINE HEIM’S
SECOND AMENDED THIRD PARTY
COMPLAINT AND MARK HEIM’S
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Local Rule 6-1(a)
24
25
26
Defendants.
AND RELATED ACTIONS.
ACTION FILED:
TRIAL DATE:
August 26, 2010
None Set
27
28
1
LOCAL RULE 6-1(a) STIPULATION EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO
AMENDED PLEADINGS
Pursuant to Local Rule 6-1(a), Third Party Plaintiff MAXINE HEIM, Plaintiff
1
2
MARK HEIM and nominal Defendants and Third Party Defendants MULTIMATIC DRY
3
CLEANING MACHINE CORPORATION, MULTIMATIC CORPORATION, MULTIMATIC
4
LLC, and THE KIRRBERG CORPORATION (together the “Multimatic Entities”), by and
5
through their respective counsel, hereby stipulate that the Multimatic Entities shall have until
6
August 1, 2011, to respond to the Second Amended Third Party Complaint and First Amended
7
Complaint of MAXINE HEIM and MARK HEIM, respectively.
This extension will not alter the date of any event or any deadline already fixed by
8
9
10
Court order.
SO STIPULATED.
11
12
DATED: July 18, 2011
DONGELL LAWRENCE FINNEY LLP
13
By: _/s/ Ian P. Culver________________________
Ian P. Culver
Attorneys for Third Party Defendants
MULTIMATIC LLC and THE KIRRBERG
CORPORATION, formerly known as Multimatic
Corporation
14
15
16
17
18
19
DATED: July 18, 2011
GREBEN & ASSOCIATES
20
By: _/s/ Danielle DeSmeth____________________
Danielle DeSmeth
Attorneys for Third Party Plaintiff
MAXINE HEIM
21
22
23
24
DATED: July 18, 2011
LAW OFFICES OF MARTIN DEUTSCH
25
By: _/s/ Sosan Akbar ____________________
Sosan Akbar
Attorneys for Plaintiff
MARK HEIM
26
27
28
1414-038/63524
2
LOCAL RULE 6-1(a) STIPULATION EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO
AMENDED PLEADINGS
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?