Free Stipulation - District Court of California - California


File Size: 13.9 kB
Pages: 3
Date: December 31, 1969
File Format: PDF
State: California
Category: District Court of California
Author: unknown
Word Count: 567 Words, 3,497 Characters
Page Size: Letter (8 1/2" x 11")
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/cand/206126/16.pdf

Download Stipulation - District Court of California ( 13.9 kB)


Preview Stipulation - District Court of California
Case 3:08-cv-03785-EDL

Document 16

Filed 09/02/2008

Page 1 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

David Rude (SBN 67367) CLARK & RUDE Ten Almaden Blvd., Suite 550 San Jose, CA 95113-2238 Telephone: (408) 971-1099 Facsimile: (408) 971-1133 Email: [email protected] Attorneys for Defendant BRAD MCCARTHY Grace Y. Horoupian (SBN 180337) KUTAK ROCK LLP 18201 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 1100 Irvine, CA 92612-1077 Telephone: (949) 417-0999 Email: [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff BANKFIRST, a South Dakota corporation UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA BANKFIRST, a South Dakota corporation, Plaintiff, v. BRAD McCARTHY, an individual resident of Alameda County, Defendant. The Plaintiff, BankFirst, a South Dakota corporation, and Defendant, Brad McCarthy, an individual resident of Alameda County, California, by and through their respective counsel, hereby stipulate and agree as follows: RECITALS
1. The Complaint in this case was filed on June 13, 2008 (entered June 18, 2008) in

Case No. C 08-03785 EDL STIPULATION EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT

the Central District of California. 2.

The sole basis of federal court jurisdiction in this case is diversity of
1
Stip Extending Time to Respond.doc

citizenship between the parties and the controversy exceeds $75,000.
STIPULATION EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND CASE NO. C 08-03785 EDL

Case 3:08-cv-03785-EDL

Document 16

Filed 09/02/2008

Page 2 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

3.

The only defendant, Brad McCarthy, is a resident of Alameda County,

California and Mr. McCarthy has never been a resident of any county within the Central District of California.
4.

Venue was therefore improper in the Central District pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

section 1391(a)(1).
5.

The transfer of this case to the Northern District of California was in the

interest of justice pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 1406(a) . 6. On July 22, 2008, a stipulation for transfer to the Northern District of

California by reason of improper venue was filed with the court in the Central District.
7.

On July 23, 2008, Judge Valerie B. Fairbank filed an order transferring this

case to the Northern District of California.
8.

The case was transferred to and filed in the Northern District on August 7,

2008.
9.

Defendant's counsel was first notified that the case had been transferred to

and filed in the Northern District by fax from Plaintiff's counsel on August 25, 2008. 10. The parties have agreed that Defendant shall have until September 19, 2008

within which to file his responsive pleadings. 11. The Initial Case Management Conference has been set for November 18,

2008 at 10:00 a.m. STIPULATION The parties hereby stipulate that Defendant Brad McCarthy shall have to and including September 19, 2008 within which to file his responsive pleadings. DATED: August 29, 2008 CLARK & RUDE

By:

/s/ David Rude Attorneys for Defendant BRAD MCCARTHY

2
STIPULATION EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND CASE NO. C 08-03785 EDL

Stip Extending Time to Respond.doc

Case 3:08-cv-03785-EDL

Document 16

Filed 09/02/2008

Page 3 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

DATED: August 29, 2008

KUTAK ROCK LLP

By:

/s/ Grace Y. Horoupian Attorneys for Plaintiff BANKFIRST

3
STIPULATION EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND CASE NO. C 08-03785 EDL

Stip Extending Time to Respond.doc