Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02383/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02383-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1962 Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

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

Case No. 3:15-CV-2383-RS [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED 

REQUEST TO EXTEND TIME 

DENNIS S. ELLIS (SB# 178196) 

dennisellis@paulhastings.com

ADAM M. REICH (SB# 274235) 

adamreich@paulhastings.com

COURTNEY DETHOMAS (SB# 294591)

courtneydethomas@paulhastings.com

PAUL HASTINGS LLP

515 South Flower Street

Twenty-Fifth Floor

Los Angeles, CA 90071-2228

Telephone: (213) 683-6000

Facsimile: (213) 627-0705

ARNOLDO BARBA (SB#198131)

arnold.barba@limruger.com

LIM, RUGER & KIM, LLP

1055 West 7th Street, Suite 2800

Los Angeles, CA 90017

Telephone: (213) 955-9500

Facsimile: (213) 955-9511

Attorneys for Defendants

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY; ALBERT 

TORRES; BILL CHEN; and TANISHA ROBINSON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

UNITED ENERGY TRADING, LLC,

Plaintiff,

vs.

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC 

COMPANY, a California corporation; 

ALBERT TORRES, an individual; BILL 

CHEN, an individual; TANISHA 

ROBINSON, an individual,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 3:15-CV-2383-RS

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING 

STIPULATED REQUEST TO EXTEND 

TIME TO RESPOND TO SECOND 

AMENDED COMPLAINT AND FOR AN 

ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO FILE 

OPPOSITION AND REPLY BRIEFS IF A 

MOTION TO DISMISS IS FILED, 

PURSUANT TO CIVIL LOCAL RULES 6-

1(b), 6-2, 7-12

Action Filed: May 28, 2015

2nd Am. Compl. Filed: May 13, 2016

Current Response Date: May 27, 2016

New Response Date: June 10, 2016

Case 3:15-cv-02383-RS Document 91 Filed 05/24/16 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

Case No. 3:15-CV-2383-RS -1- [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED 

REQUEST TO EXTEND TIME 

[PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING STIPULATED REQUEST TO EXTEND TIME

The Stipulated Request to Extend Time to Respond to Second Amended Complaint and 

for an Enlargement of Time to File Opposition and Reply Briefs if a Motion to Dismiss is Filed, 

Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 6-1(b), 6-2, 7-12 (“Stipulated Request”), agreed to by plaintiff 

United Energy Trading, LLC (“UET”) and defendants Pacific Gas and Electric Company

(“PG&E”), Albert Torres, Bill Chen and Tanisha Robinson (collectively, the “Individual 

Defendants,” and together with PG&E, the “Defendants”), was submitted for Court approval on 

May 20, 2016. Having considered the Stipulated Request, and all other pleadings and papers on 

file in this Action, the Court rules as follows:

WHEREAS, UET filed a Second Amended Complaint on May 13, 2016;

WHEREAS, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 15(a)(3), Defendants’ 

response to the Second Amended Complaint is currently due on May 27, 2016;

WHEREAS, counsel for Defendants have had scheduling conflicts with other cases during 

the time period contemplated by Rule 15(a)(3), including a multi-week Arbitration, and have 

scheduling conflicts with other cases through the end of May, which require travel outside the 

country, the collective effect of both being the interference with counsel’s ability to adequately 

assess the Second Amended Complaint and advise Defendants;

WHEREAS, all parties have agreed that Defendants shall have until June 10, 2016, to 

answer or otherwise respond to the Second Amended Complaint;

WHEREAS, this extension of time does not affect any existing dates set forth in the Case 

Management Scheduling Order.

WHEREAS, if on June 10, 2016, Defendants file a Motion to Dismiss the Second 

Amended Complaint, then pursuant to Local Rule 7-3, UET’s Opposition to that Motion would 

be due on June 24, 2016, and Defendants’ Reply in Support of that Motion would be due July 1, 

2016;

Case 3:15-cv-02383-RS Document 91 Filed 05/24/16 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

Case No. 3:15-CV-2383-RS -2- [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED 

REQUEST TO EXTEND TIME 

WHEREAS, all parties have agreed that if Defendants file a Motion to Dismiss on June 

10, 2016 to respond to the Second Amended Complaint, than the standard briefing schedule 

required by Local Rule 7-3 should be enlarged as follows:

Brief Standard Schedule Stipulated Enlargement

Opposition Brief June 24, 2016 July 1, 2016

Reply Brief July 1, 2016 July 15, 2016

WHEREAS, the stipulated briefing enlargements are sought in advance of the 

expiration of any related filing deadline;

WHEREAS, the stipulated briefing enlargements do not affect any existing dates 

set forth in the Case Management Scheduling Order;

WHEREAS, the stipulated briefing enlargements maintain the minimum 35 day 

notice schedule contemplated by Local Rule 7-2;

WHEREAS, none of the extensions sought by the Stipulated Request prejudice the 

parties or the Court;

Good cause appearing therefor, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. The date for Defendants to answer or otherwise response to UET’s Second 

Amended Complaint is extended from May 27, 2016 through and including June 

10, 2016;

2. If Defendants file a Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on June 

10, 2016 in response to UET’s Second Amended Complaint, than the following 

briefing schedule will apply:

x UET’s Brief in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is due July 1, 

2016; and

x Defendants’ Reply in Support of Motion Dismiss is due July 15, 2016.

SO ORDERED this day of , 2016.

By: 

The Honorable Richard G. Seeborg

United States District Court Judge

24th May

Case 3:15-cv-02383-RS Document 91 Filed 05/24/16 Page 3 of 3