Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Chao v. PSM Holding Corp.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


January 14, 2008

JULIE C. CHAO, AN INDIVIDUAL, AND IN HER CAPACITY AS TRUSTEE OF CHAO LIVING TRUST, PSM HOLDING CORP.'S PLAINTIFF,
v.
PSM HOLDING CORP., A CORPORATION, AND DOES 1-20, INCLUSIVE, DEFENDANTS.

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND DEFENDANT TIME TO RESPOND TO THE COMPLAINT

WHEREAS, on December 10, 2007, plaintiff Julie C. Chao ("Chao"), served defendant PSM Holding Corp. ("PSM") with its Complaint for Declaratory Relief (the "Complaint") and Summons issued by the Superior Court of California for the County of San Mateo by United States registered mail, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §415.40;

WHEREAS, on January 7, 2008, PSM removed the above-entitled action from State court to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (the "Northern District");

WHEREAS, on January 7, 2008, PSM filed a Notice of Pendency of Other Action requesting transfer of the above-entitled action from the Northern District to the Honorable Valerie Baker Fairbank in the Central District of California, for the reasons stated therein;

WHEREAS, on January 9, 2008, the parties met and conferred pursuant to Northern District Local Rule 7-11 on PSM's intent to file an Administrative Motion for Determination of Related Case;

WHEREAS, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 6 and 81(c)(2)(C), PSM's response to the Complaint would be due on January 14, 2008, absent an order pursuant to this Stipulation;

WHEREAS, the parties wish to have a resolution, either by court order or by agreement of the parties, on the issues raised in the Notice of Pendency or any motion that PSM may file for determination of related case, before any responsive pleading to the Complaint is due;

WHEREAS, no previous extensions of time have been requested by either party in the above-entitled action; and

WHEREAS, the requested extension of time would have no detrimental effect on the schedule for the above-entitled action;

THEREFORE, plaintiff Chao and defendant PSM hereby stipulate, through their respective counsel and pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b) and Northern District Local Rules 6-1, 6-2 and 7-12, that PSM shall have up to and including February 4, 2008, to respond to the Complaint in this matter.

Dated: January 10, 2008

PSM HOLDING CORP. PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

20080114

© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.