Filed: Mar. 20, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 20, 2014
Summary: STIPULATION RE EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT; ORDER [Local Rule 144] JOHN A. MENDEZ, District Judge. RECITALS 1. On or about February 27, 2013, Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint in Interpleader ("the Complaint") with the Yuba County Superior Court in Case No. YCSCCVCV 12-0001124. 2. On or about December 2, 2013, Plaintiffs completed service of the Complaint on the United States. 3. On or about January 2, 2014, the United States timely filed a Notice of Removal of
Summary: STIPULATION RE EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT; ORDER [Local Rule 144] JOHN A. MENDEZ, District Judge. RECITALS 1. On or about February 27, 2013, Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint in Interpleader ("the Complaint") with the Yuba County Superior Court in Case No. YCSCCVCV 12-0001124. 2. On or about December 2, 2013, Plaintiffs completed service of the Complaint on the United States. 3. On or about January 2, 2014, the United States timely filed a Notice of Removal of t..
More
STIPULATION RE EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT; ORDER
[Local Rule 144]
JOHN A. MENDEZ, District Judge.
RECITALS
1. On or about February 27, 2013, Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint in Interpleader ("the Complaint") with the Yuba County Superior Court in Case No. YCSCCVCV 12-0001124.
2. On or about December 2, 2013, Plaintiffs completed service of the Complaint on the United States.
3. On or about January 2, 2014, the United States timely filed a Notice of Removal of the Complaint.
4. By stipulation filed January 8, 2014 [Doc # 4], and pursuant to Local Rule 144, the parties agreed to an extension of time through February 6, 2014, for any responsive pleading to be filed by any defendant served with the summons who had not answered the Complaint in state court. Additionally, by stipulation filed January 29, 2014 [Doc # 7], and by Order filed January 30, 2014 [Doc # 8], the parties requested and received authority for an additional extension of time to file responsive pleadings through and including March 24, 2014.
5. This stipulation represents the United States' third request for an extension of time to file responsive pleadings to the removed First Amended Complaint. The United States recognizes that multiple requests for extensions are not generally viewed favorably by the Court, but it is the United States' contention that unusual circumstances exist to warrant a further extension. Those circumstances, demonstrating good cause, are as follows:
A. This case arises out of the Bullards Bar fire, a fire that ignited on August 27, 2010, in the Tahoe and Plumas National Forests. While MWE SERVICES, INC., ("MWE") and CHRISTOPHER MARTIN ("Martin") (the plaintiffs in this interpleader action) deny liability, it is nevertheless the United States' contention that the Bullards Fire ignited as a result of the negligence of these parties. MWE and Martin have filed this interpleader action because they are the insureds under a $1 million policy of insurance through Berkley Regional Specialty Insurance Company ("Berkley Insurance"), and they have sought to interplead the policy to resolve conflicting claims.
B. The conflicting claims against Berkley Insurance's policy consist of the United States' claims as well as the claims of the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection ("Cal Fire"). Both the United States and Cal Fire incurred significant costs in suppressing the Bullards Bar Fire. While other defendants were originally named in the interpleader action, the United States is informed and believes that these defendants were dismissed before the interpleader action was removed.
C. Over the last several weeks, the parties have been discussing, among other issues, objections that the United States and Cal Fire have concerning subject matter jurisdiction. Specifically, it is the United States' position (a contention disputed by plaintiffs) that MWE and Martin, as insureds under the Berkley Insurance policy, are not "stakeholders" of the policy and do not have standing to interplead the policy. Recently, counsel for Berkley Regional joined in the parties' discussions and, while the parties and Berkley Regional require more time to meet and confer, there is a possibility that the parties will agree to terms (including possible terms allowing Berkley Insurance to substitute in as real party in interest) that will satisfy the United States' objections to standing.
D. The parties desire to avoid the time and expense associated with litigating a 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss addressing the standing issue and, should this request for an extension be approved, intend to continue their discussions aimed at resolving the United States' standing objection before a responsive pleading is due to be filed.
STIPULATION
The parties hereto, acting by and through their counsel, hereby stipulate that the deadline for the United States to file responsive pleadings to the First Amended Complaint shall be extended by 30 days, from March 24, 2014, through and including April 23, 2014.
ORDER
Based on the stipulation of the parties, and good cause appearing therefor,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the deadline for the United States to file responsive pleadings to the First Amended Complaint shall be extended by 30 days, from March 24, 2014, through and including April 23, 2014.
