Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Farris v. 3M Company, 3:18-cv-04186-JST. (2018)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20181019j05 Visitors: 10
Filed: Oct. 16, 2018
Latest Update: Oct. 16, 2018
Summary: STIPULATION THAT ANSWER BY RICOH COMPANY, LTD. TO PLAINTIFFS' ORIGINAL COMPLAINT BE DEEMED ITS ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; [PROPOSED] ORDER JON S. TIGAR , District Judge . Plaintiffs Melva and Gary Farris ("Plaintiffs") and RICOH COMPANY, LTD. (erroneously sued and served as "RICOH COMPANY LTD. (individually and as successor-in-interest to SAVIN CORPORATION and served through its general manager, RICOH USA, INC.)") ("RICOH COMPANY, LTD.") hereby stipulate, as follow
More

STIPULATION THAT ANSWER BY RICOH COMPANY, LTD. TO PLAINTIFFS' ORIGINAL COMPLAINT BE DEEMED ITS ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; [PROPOSED] ORDER

Plaintiffs Melva and Gary Farris ("Plaintiffs") and RICOH COMPANY, LTD. (erroneously sued and served as "RICOH COMPANY LTD. (individually and as successor-in-interest to SAVIN CORPORATION and served through its general manager, RICOH USA, INC.)") ("RICOH COMPANY, LTD.") hereby stipulate, as follows:

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between Plaintiffs and RICOH COMPANY, LTD. through their respective attorneys, that RICOH COMPANY, LTD.'s answer to Plaintiffs' original Complaint herein be deemed RICOH COMPANY, LTD.'s answer to Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint.

All new matters are deemed controverted.

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