Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-06169/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-06169-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 140
Nature of Suit: Negotiable Instruments
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

[PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING DEFENDANT’S TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT

CASE NO. C07-06169 

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 

SULLIVAN

& 

CROMWELL LLP

Brendan P. Cullen (SBN 194057) cullenb@sullcrom.com 

Amie D. Rooney (SBN 215324) rooneya@sullcrom.com 

SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP 

1870 Embarcadero Road 

Palo Alto, California 94303 

Telephone: (650) 461-5600 

Facsimile: (650) 461-5700 

Attorneys for Defendant ABN AMRO Bank, N.A. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

E&M TRUST, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

ABN AMRO BANK, N.A., PB TRADING 

S.A., JAIME S. DREYFUS ZAMOKEVICH, 

J. RICHTER, RUDY BECKMAN, GRIP 

VERKIN, 

 Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No. C07-06169 

[PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING 

DEFENDANT ABN AMRO BANK, 

N.A.’S TIME TO RESPOND TO 

COMPLAINT 

Jude: The Hon. Bernard Zimmerman 

Date Action Filed: December 5, 2007 

Trial Date: Not yet set 

Case 3:07-cv-06169-BZ Document 25 Filed 02/01/08 Page 1 of 2
1 

[PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING DEFENDANT’S TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT

CASE NO. C07-06169 

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 

SULLIVAN

& 

CROMWELL LLP

WHEREAS, Plaintiff E&M Trust (“Plaintiff”) filed its complaint pro se in the abovecaptioned case on December 5, 2007; 

WHEREAS, on December 28, 2007, defendant ABN AMRO Bank, N.A. (“ABN 

AMRO”) filed a motion to enlarge time to respond to the complaint because ABN AMRO’s counsel had 

been unsuccessful in contacting Plaintiff to secure its agreement to an extension; 

WHEREAS, on January 2, 2008, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause requiring 

Plaintiff to explain why the case should not be dismissed for non-compliance with the Civil Local Rule 

requiring a corporation to appear only through legal counsel, or, in the alternative, requiring Plaintiff to 

retain counsel, and staying the case pending resolution of the issue; 

WHEREAS, on January 25, 2008, Plaintiff filed a notice of appearance of counsel; 

WHEREAS, on January 28, 2008, the Court discharged the Order to show cause and 

lifted the stay; 

WHEREAS Plaintiff’s counsel has agreed to extend the time in which ABN AMRO may 

answer, move, cross-complain or otherwise respond to Plaintiff’s complaint through March 31, 2008; 

and 

WHEREAS no prior extensions have been granted for the time in which ABN AMRO 

could answer, move, cross-complain or otherwise respond to Plaintiff’s complaint; 

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 

1. ABN AMRO’s time to answer, move, cross-complain or otherwise respond to the 

complaint is hereby extended through March 31, 2008. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Date: __________________, 2008 

 The Honorable Bernard Zimmerman 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Northern District of California 

January 31st

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Bernard Zimmerman

Case 3:07-cv-06169-BZ Document 25 Filed 02/01/08 Page 2 of 2