Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

MOORE v. VALLEY INDUSTRIAL X-RAY AND INSPECTION SERVICES, INC., 1:13-cv-01801-LJO-JLT. (2014)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20140303712 Visitors: 9
Filed: Feb. 27, 2014
Latest Update: Feb. 27, 2014
Summary: ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (Doc. 14) JENNIFER L. THURSTON, Magistrate Judge. Pursuant Civil Local Rule 143 of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, the Parties to the above entitled action, Todd Moore ("Plaintiff") and VALLEY INDUSTRIAL X-RAY AND INSPECTION SERVICES, INC. ("Defendant Valley" or "Valley") (collectively referred to as the "Parties"), by and through their undersigned counsel, enter into the following Stipulation:
More

ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

(Doc. 14)

JENNIFER L. THURSTON, Magistrate Judge.

Pursuant Civil Local Rule 143 of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, the Parties to the above entitled action, Todd Moore ("Plaintiff") and VALLEY INDUSTRIAL X-RAY AND INSPECTION SERVICES, INC. ("Defendant Valley" or "Valley") (collectively referred to as the "Parties"), by and through their undersigned counsel, enter into the following Stipulation:

WHEREAS, Plaintiff filed the original Complaint before the California Superior Court for the County of Kern on August 21, 2013 (Case No. S-1500-CV-280101 SPC).

WHEREAS, Defendant Valley answered the Complaint on November 8, 2013 and removed the case to the United State District Court for the Eastern District of California on November 19, 2013.

WHERAS, the Parties have met and conferred and agree that Plaintiff may file a First Amended Complaint ("FAC"), a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. The proposed FAC contains one substantive change from the initial complaint: Applus+ RTD USA was removed as a Defendant based on information provided by Defendant Valley. For ease of reference, a copy of the FAC showing redlined changes from the initial Complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit B.

WHEREAS, the Parties have further agreed that Plaintiff shall file and serve the proposed FAC within ten (10) days of the entrance of the [Proposed] Order filed concurrently herewith and that Defendant shall have fourteen (14) days from the service of the FAC to file an answer to the FAC.

WHEREAS, the Parties have further agreed that, notwithstanding any rule or law to the contrary, and without waiving any rights or defenses, Defendant shall be permitted to file a general denial to the FAC in the same manner that it answered the original Complaint.

NOW THEREFORE, the Parties stipulate that, by order of this Court:

1. Plaintiff shall be permitted to file the attached FAC;

2. Plaintiff shall file and serve the FAC within ten (10) days of the entrance of the [proposed] Order filed concurrently herewith;

3. Defendant shall have fourteen (14) days from the service of the FAC to answer the FAC; and

4. Defendant shall be permitted, notwithstanding any rule or law to the contrary, and without waiving any rights or defenses, to file a general denial to the FAC in the same manner that it answered the original Complaint.

IT IS SO STIPULATED, THROUGH COUNSEL OF RECORD.

ORDER

1. The stipulation filed by the parties allowing Plaintiff to file a first amended complaint is GRANTED;

2. Plaintiff SHALL file the first amended complaint within 10 days of this order;

3. Defendant SHALL file its responsive pleading within 14 days of filing of the first amended complaint; and

4. Based upon the stipulation of the parties, Defendant may file a general denial to the FAC in the same manner in which it answered the original complaint.

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