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.

Meredith v. BDO Seidman

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION


November 5, 2008

WILLIAM MEREDITH, IN HIS CAPACITY AS TRUSTEE OF THE GRANUM 1983 CHILDREN'S TRUST; ROBERT GRANUM, AN INDIVIDUAL, PLAINTIFFS,
v.
BDO SEIDMAN, LLP, A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP; GRAMERCY ADVISORS, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY; AND DOES ONE THROUGH THIRTY, INCLUSIVE, DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge: Hon. Jeremy Fogel

STIPULATION TO EXTEND DEADLINE FOR GRAMERCY ADVISORS LLC TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT UNTIL FEBRUARY 27, 2009; 15 DECLARATION OF MARK A. BYRNE; [PROPOSED] ORDER THEREON

This Stipulation is entered into by and between Plaintiffs William Meredith, in his capacity as trustee of the Granum 1983 Children's Trust and Robert Granum (collectively, "Plaintiffs") and Defendant Gramercy Advisors LLC ("Gramercy"), specially appearing, through their respective counsel.

WHEREAS, on May 20, 2008, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint against Gramercy and BDO Seidman LLP in the Superior Court of California for the County of Santa Clara;

WHEREAS, on September 19, 2008, Plaintiffs personally served Gramercy with a copy of the Summons and Complaint;

WHEREAS, Gramercy's response to the Complaint would ordinarily be due on or before October 20, 2008;

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs previously agreed to a thirty day (30) day extension until November 19, 2008, for Gramercy to respond to the Complaint, without prejudice to any jurisdictional challenges Gramercy may raise in its response;

WHEREAS, Gramercy filed a notice of removal to this Court on October 17, 27 2008;

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs and Defendant BDO Seidman LLP ("BDO") have agreed to work together to seek possible resolution of this matter through mediation and have scheduled a mediation to take place on January 7, 2009, with the Hon. Layn Phillips;

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs and BDO agreed to extend the time for BDO to respond 9 to the Complaint until February 17, 2009, to avoid incurring unnecessary attorneys fees and costs and in the interest of judicial economy, which the Court approved on October 24, 2008;

WHEREAS, Plaintiff and Gramercy have agreed to extend the deadline for Gramercy to respond to the Complaint until February 27, 2009, in light of the pending mediation, to avoid incurring unnecessary attorneys fees and costs and in the interest of judicial economy.

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties as follows:

1. Gramercy shall have up to and including February 27, 2009, to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint.

2. This stipulation will not be considered as Gramercy's submission to the jurisdiction of this Court, as Gramercy may challenge personal jurisdiction.

3. This stipulation shall not be construed as a waiver of Plaintiffs'5 rights to object to the removal of this action to federal court, nor a waiver of Plaintiffs' right to assert that the Court has personal jurisdiction over Gramercy.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

Respectfully submitted,

DATED: November 3, 2008

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Hon. Jeremy Fogel United States District Court Judge

DECLARATION OF MARK A. BYRNE

I, Mark A. Byrne, declare as follows:

1. I am an attorney licensed to practice law before all of the courts in the State of California and before the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. I am a partner in the law firm of Byrne & Nixon, LLP, counsel of record for defendant Gramercy Advisors LLC ("Gramercy") in the above-captioned matter. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein, and, if called to testify regarding them, I could and would do so competently under oath.

2. On May 20, 2008, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint against Gramercy and BDO Seidman LLP in the Superior Court of California for the County of Santa Clara. Based upon the date of service, Gramercy's response to the Complaint would have been due on or before October 20, 2008. Plaintiffs agreed to a thirty day (30) day extension (until November 19, 2008), for Gramercy to respond to the Complaint, without prejudice to any jurisdictional challenges Gramercy may raise in its response.

3. On October 17, 2008, Gramercy filed a notice of removal to this Court.

4. I am informed and believe that Plaintiffs and Defendant BDO Seidman LLP ("BDO") have agreed to work together to seek possible resolution of this matter through mediation and have scheduled a mediation to take place on January 7, 2009, with the Hon. Layn Phillips. In addition, Plaintiffs and BDO agreed to extend the time for BDO to respond to the Complaint until February 17, 2009, to avoid incurring unnecessary attorneys fees and costs and in the interest of judicial economy;

5. The Stipulation between Plaintiffs and Gramercy to extend the deadline for Gramercy to respond to the Complaint until February 27, 2009, is necessary, in light of the pending mediation, to avoid incurring unnecessary attorneys fees and costs and in the interest of judicial economy.

6. The Stipulated extension would require the Court to rescheduled 10 the Initial Case Management Conference currently scheduled for February 13, 2009, and related deadlines. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct and was executed this 4th day of

November, 2008, at Los Angeles, California.

MARK A. BYRNE

20081105

© 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.