Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

U.S. v. GONZALES & GONZALES BONDS AND INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., C 09-04029 EMC. (2012)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20121109759 Visitors: 10
Filed: Nov. 08, 2012
Latest Update: Nov. 08, 2012
Summary: STIPULATION TO ENLARGE TIME SET FORTH IN THE REMAND ORDER EDWARD M. CHEN, District Judge. Pursuant to Civil L.R. 6-1, 6-2, and 7-12, Plaintiff United States of America, Counterdefendants United States Department of Homeland Security and Janet Napolitano, in her capacity as Secretary of United States Department of Homeland Security (collectively "United States"), on the one hand, and Defendants/Counterclaimants Gonzales & Gonzales Bonds and Insurance Agency, Inc. and American Surety Company, In
More

STIPULATION TO ENLARGE TIME SET FORTH IN THE REMAND ORDER

EDWARD M. CHEN, District Judge.

Pursuant to Civil L.R. 6-1, 6-2, and 7-12, Plaintiff United States of America, Counterdefendants United States Department of Homeland Security and Janet Napolitano, in her capacity as Secretary of United States Department of Homeland Security (collectively "United States"), on the one hand, and Defendants/Counterclaimants Gonzales & Gonzales Bonds and Insurance Agency, Inc. and American Surety Company, Inc. ("G&G/ASC"), on the other hand, by and through their respective counsel of record, and stipulate and agree as follows:

1. The Court issued a Remand Order on September 25, 2012, dkt. 141. The Order directs G&G, within 60 days of remand, to supplement the record before DHS with its defenses to each bond breach determination and an explanation of why those defenses should bar collection of the bonds.

2. Given that nearly 60 bonds have been remanded to DHS, G&G asserts that it needs additional time to present its defenses and explanations of why those defenses should bar collection. The parties have agreed to a 60 day extension for G&G to provide this information to DHS for each of the remanded bonds. The new deadline would be January 23, 2013.

3. This is the first proposed time modification to the Remand Order.

4. The requested enlargement of time would not affect the schedule for the case.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer