Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-05352/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-05352-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 240
Nature of Suit: Torts to Land
Cause of Action: 28:1442 Petition for Removal

---

- 1 - Case No. 3:18-CV-05352-JST 

STIPULATION & [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPL. 

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 

HANSON BRIDGETT LLP 

MERTON A. HOWARD, SBN 161125 

mhoward@hansonbridgett.com 

MEGAN OLIVER THOMPSON, SBN 256654 

moliverthompson@hansonbridgett.com 

LAWRENCE M. CIRELLI, SBN 114710 

lcirelli@hansonbridgett.com 

DAVINA PUJARI, SBN 183407 

dpujari@hansonbridgett.com 

425 Market Street, 26th Floor 

San Francisco, California 94105 

Telephone: (415) 777-3200 

Facsimile: (415) 541-9366 

Attorneys for TETRA TECH EC, INC. and TETRA 

TECH, INC. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

THEODORE ELLINGTON AND VICTORIA 

TRUSTY, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

TETRA TECH, INC.; TETRA TECH EC, 

INC.; LENNAR CORPORATION; HPS1 

BLOCK 51 LLC; FIVEPOINT HOLDINGS, 

LLC; BILL DOUGHERTY; NICK ZAFERES; 

EMILE HADDAD, and DOES 1-100 

Inclusive, 

Defendants. 

Case No. 3:18-CV-05352-JST 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO 

RESPOND TO COMPLAINT UNTIL 

AFTER RESOLUTION OF REMAND 

MOTION

Case 3:18-cv-05352-JD Document 16 Filed 10/01/18 Page 1 of 5
 - 1 - Case No. 3:18-CV-05352-JST 

STIPULATION & [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPL. 

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 

STIPULATION 

Pursuant to Local Rule 6-1, Plaintiffs Theodore Ellington and Victoria Trusty 

(“Plaintiffs”) and Defendants Tetra Tech, Inc., Tetra Tech EC, Inc., Lennar Corporation, HPS1 

Block 51 LLC, FivePoint Holdings, Bill Dougherty, Nick Zaferes, and Emile Haddad 

(“Defendants”), by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate as follows: 

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs filed this action in the Superior Court of California, in and for the 

County of San Francisco on July 24, 2018; 

WHEREAS, Defendant Tetra Tech EC, Inc. (“Tetra Tech”) removed this action to this 

Court on August 30, 2018; 

WHEREAS, the parties stipulated and agreed that Defendants shall have to and including 

October 1, 2018, to respond to the complaint; 

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand this action on September 25, 2018; 

WHEREAS, the parties agree that this Court’s jurisdiction over this action should be 

resolved before Defendants respond to the complaint; 

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs filed another action that Tetra Tech removed to the Northern 

District of California, Pennington, et al. v. Tetra Tech, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-05330-JD, in 

which the parties will submit a similar stipulation and proposed order; 

WHEREFORE, the parties stipulate and agree that Defendants’ time to respond to the 

complaint is extended until 30 days after the Court denies the motion to remand or, if the motion 

is granted, 30 days after the original court receives the case on remand pursuant to California 

Code of Civil Procedure section 430.90. 

IT IS SO STIPULATED. 

Case 3:18-cv-05352-JD Document 16 Filed 10/01/18 Page 2 of 5
 - 2 - Case No. 3:18-CV-05352-JST 

STIPULATION & [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPL. 

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: September 26, 2018 By: /s/ Anne Marie Murphy

 JOSEPH W. COTCHETT 

ANNE MARIE MURPHY 

ALISON E. CORDOVA 

ADAM J. TROTT 

STEPHANIE D. BIEHL 

COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP 

840 Malcolm Road 

Burlingame, CA 94010 

Telephone: (650) 697-6000 

Facsimile: (650) 697-0577 

Attorneys for THEODORE ELLINGTON and 

VICTORIA TRUSTY 

DATED: September 26, 2018 By: /s/ Megan Oliver Thompson 

 MERTON A. HOWARD 

MEGAN OLIVER THOMPSON 

LAWRENCE M. CIRELLI 

DAVINA PUJARI 

HANSON BRIDGETT LLP 

425 Market Street, 26th Floor 

San Francisco, California 94105 

Telephone: (415) 777-3200 

Facsimile: (415) 541-9366 

Attorneys for TETRA TECH EC, INC. and 

TETRA TECH, INC. 

DATED: September 26, 2018 By: /s/ Matthew Wickersham 

 JEFFREY DINTZER

MATTHEW WICKERSHAM 

ALSTON & BIRD LLP 

333 S. Hope St., 16th Floor 

Los Angeles, CA 90071 

Telephone: (213) 576-1000 

Facsimile: (213) 576-1100 

Attorneys for FIVEPOINT HOLDINGS, LLC 

and EMILE HADDAD 

DATED: September 26, 2018 By: /s/ Richard M. Steingard 

 RICHARD M. STEINGARD 

Law Offices of Richard M. Steingard 

800 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 1050 

Los Angeles, CA 90017-2672 

Telephone: (213) 260-9436 

Attorneys for BILL DOUGHERTY 

Case 3:18-cv-05352-JD Document 16 Filed 10/01/18 Page 3 of 5
 - 3 - Case No. 3:18-CV-05352-JST 

STIPULATION & [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPL. 

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: September 26, 2018 By: /s/ Geoffrey H. Yost 

 DANIEL M. PETROCELLI (S.B. #97802) 

dpetrocelli@omm.com 

DAVID MARROSO (S.B. #211655) 

dmarroso@omm.com 

MADHU POCHA (S.B. #260997) 

mpocha@omm.com 

O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP 

1999 Avenue of the Stars, 8th Floor 

Los Angeles, California 90067-6035 

Telephone: +1 310 553 6700 

Facsimile: +1 310 246 6779 

GEOFFREY H. YOST (S.B. #159687) 

gyost@omm.com 

O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP 

Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor 

San Francisco, California 94111-3823 

Telephone: +1 415 984 8700 

Facsimile: +1 415 984 8701 

VISION WINTER (S.B. #234172) 

vwinter@omm.com 

O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP 

2765 Sand Hill Road 

Menlo Park, California 94025-7019 

Telephone: +1 650 473 2600 

Facsimile: +1 650 473 2601 

Attorneys for LENNAR CORPORATION, HPS1 

BLOCK 51 LLC and NICK ZAFERES 

Civil Local Rule 5-1(i)(3) Attestation 

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), I, Megan Oliver Thompson, the ECF user whose 

user ID and password are being utilized in the electronic filing of the foregoing Stipulation 

Extending Time to Respond to Complaint Until After Resolution of Remand Motion, hereby 

attest that I obtained concurrence in the filing of the document from each of the other signatories 

hereto. 

Dated: September 26, 2018 By: __/s/ Megan Oliver Thompson_ 

 Megan Oliver Thompson

Case 3:18-cv-05352-JD Document 16 Filed 10/01/18 Page 4 of 5
 - 4 - Case No. 18-CV-05352-JST 

STIPULATION & [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPL. 

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 

[PROPOSED] ORDER 

The parties having stipulated and good cause appearing therefore, Defendants’ responses 

to Plaintiffs’ complaint in this action need not be filed and served until after this Court’s ruling on 

Plaintiffs’ motion to remand. In the event the Court denies Plaintiffs’ motion to remand and 

retains jurisdiction of this action, Defendants shall have 30 days after the date of the Court’s 

ruling on the motion to respond to Plaintiffs’ complaint. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 

John S. Tigar 

United States District Court Judge 

Jon October 1, 2018

Case 3:18-cv-05352-JD Document 16 Filed 10/01/18 Page 5 of 5