3:08-cv-04571 | N.D. Cal. | Nov 25, 2009

Case 3:08-cv-04571-SC Document 158 Filed 11/25/09 Page 1 of 2 Eric Grant (Bar No. 151064)

grant@hicks-thomas.com Hicks Thomas LLP 8001 Folsom Boulevard, Suite 100 Sacramento, California 95826 Telephone: (916) 388-0833 Facsimile: (916) 691-3261 Counsel for Defendant R.R. STREET & CO. INC.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 0 0 [6] [1] 12 KFD ENTERPRISES, INC., a California ) No. 3:08-cv-04571-MMC [3]

2 8 5 9 e 3 8 0 t i corporation dba Norman’s Dry Cleaner, ) u S -

13 ) a [8] , i 8 3 d n Plaintiff, ) r STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER r a o ) v f [6] 14 ) e WITH RESPECT TO DEFENDANT CITY i l 1 9 l a u C v. ) ( OF EUREKA’S SECOND AMENDED o B

, : o 15 ) e COMPLAINT AGAINST DEFENDANT m t n o h n o e CITY OF EUREKA, et al., ) R.R. STREET & CO. INC. s m l p o a 16 ) e [Civil L.R. 7-12] F r l

c a e 1 0 0 Defendants, ) T S 17 ) [8] ) 18 AND ALL RELATED CROSS-CLAIMS ) AND THIRD-PARTY CLAIMS. ) 19 ) 20 Pursuant to Civil L.R. 7-12, Defendant City of Eureka (“Eureka”) and Defendant R.R. 21 Street & Co. Inc. (“Street”) hereby stipulate and request judicial action as follows: 22 WHEREAS, Eureka’s Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 140, filed Nov. 9, 2009) is, vis- 23 à-vis Street, substantively identical to Eureka’s First Amended Complaint (Doc. 46, filed July 24, 24 2009); and 25 WHEREAS, Eureka and Street have previously stipulated—and this Court has previously 26 so ordered pursuant to stipulation (Doc. 101, filed Sept. 8, 2009)—that Paragraph 92 of Eureka’s 27 First Amended Complaint (claiming punitive damages) is stricken as to Street on certain terms 28 and conditions;

{00133445.DOC} 1 No. 3:08-cv-04571-MMC Stipulation re Defendant City of Eureka’s Second Amended Complaint Against Defendant R.R. Street & Co. Inc. Case 3:08-cv-04571-SC Document 158 Filed 11/25/09 Page 2 of 2

THEREFORE, Eureka and Street stipulate that

(1)

Street’s answer to Eureka’s First Amended Complaint (Doc. 99, filed Sept. 4, 2009)

shall be deemed responsive to Eureka’s Second Amended Complaint; and

(2)

Paragraph 102 of Eureka’s Second Amended Complaint is stricken as to Street on

the same terms and conditions as was previously stricken Paragraph 92 of Eureka’s First Amended

Complaint.

Dated: November 23, 2009.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Eric Grant

Eric Grant

Hicks Thomas LLP

Counsel for Defendant

R.R. STREET & CO. INC.

0 0 [6] [1] 12 [3]

2 8 5 9

e 3 8 0 t i (The filer hereby attests that concurrence in

u

S -

13

the filing of this document has been obtained

a [8] , i 8 3 d n from the signatory below.) r r a o ) v f [6] 14 e i l 1 9 l a u C ( o

B

, : o 15 DAVIDOVITZ & BENNETT LLP e m t n o h n o e s m l p o a 16 /s/ Charles Bolcom e F r l

c a e 1 0 0 MORIS DAVIDOVITZ T

S

17

CHARLES BOLCOM

[8] 18

Attorneys for Defendant, Counter-Complainant,

and Third-Party Plaintiff CITY OF EUREKA

19

20

21

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

22

23

Dated: November _____, 2009

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

24

United States District Judge

25

26

27

28

{00133445.DOC} 2 No. 3:08-cv-04571-MMC Stipulation re Defendant City of Eureka’s Second Amended Complaint Against Defendant R.R. Street & Co. Inc.