Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-05352/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-05352-1/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 AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO 

REMAND 

14921048.2 

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 PLAINTIFFS' MOTION 

TO REMAND

Case 3:18-cv-05352-JD Document 18 Filed 10/09/18 Page 1 of 5
 - 1 - Case No. 3:18-CV-05352-JST 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO 

REMAND 

14921048.2 

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 Rules 6-1 and 6-2, Plaintiffs Theodore Ellington and Victoria Trusty 

(“Plaintiffs”) and Defendant Tetra Tech EC, Inc. (“Tetra Tech”), by and through their 

undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate as follows: 

WHEREAS, Tetra Tech removed this action to this Court on August 30, 2018. 

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

WHEREAS, Tetra Tech's deadline to file an opposition to the motion to remand is 

October 9, 2018, and Plaintiffs' deadline to file a reply in support of their motion to remand is 

October 16, 2018. 

WHEREAS, the motion is currently set for hearing on November 8, 2018. 

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs also filed an identical motion to remand in a substantially similar 

case entitled Pennington, et al. v. Tetra Tech, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-05330-JD, also 

pending in the Northern District of California. The motion hearing in Pennington is currently set 

for November 15, 2018 before Judge Donato. 

WHEREAS, on September 24, 2018, Tetra Tech filed an administrative motion to 

consider whether four cases pending in the Northern District of California should be related, those 

being the instant action, the Pennington action, Michael Lin, et al. v. Tetra Tech, Inc., et al., Case 

No. 3:18-cv-05771-LB, and Dorsey v. Tetra Tech EC, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-03623-EDL, 

the action in which the administrative motion was filed. The Pennington, Ellington, and Lin

plaintiffs agree that their cases are related, but not that the Dorsey case is related. 

WHEREAS, Tetra Tech believes that resolving the administrative motion regarding 

related cases—prior to multiple hearings on identical remand motions before different assigned 

Judges—will optimally serve the parties' and the Court's interests in efficiency and equity. 

WHEREAS, under Local Rule 3-12(b)(1), a ruling is expected on the administrative 

motion by October 12, 2018. 

WHEREAS, Tetra Tech requires additional time to gather the necessary evidence to 

support its Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Remand. Some of the evidence is many decades 

Case 3:18-cv-05352-JD Document 18 Filed 10/09/18 Page 2 of 5
 - 2 - Case No. 3:18-CV-05352-JST 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO 

REMAND 

14921048.2 

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 

old and is not within the custody and control of Tetra Tech; while some of the evidence under 

review is extremely voluminous. (See Declaration of Merton A. Howard submitted herewith.) 

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by the undersigned parties, through their 

counsel, and subject to Court approval, that Tetra Tech may have until October 23, 2018, to file 

its Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand, and Plaintiffs may have a corresponding extension 

of time until November 6, 2018 to file their Reply. In order to accommodate the revised briefing 

schedule, the parties are available for hearing on November 15, November 29, or such later date 

as is ordered by the Court. 

Dated: October 5, 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: October 5, 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. 

 

Case 3:18-cv-05352-JD Document 18 Filed 10/09/18 Page 3 of 5
 - 3 - Case No. 3:18-CV-05352-JST 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO 

REMAND 

14921048.2 

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 

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 Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand, hereby attest that I obtained 

concurrence in the filing of the document from each of the other signatories hereto. 

Dated: October 5, 2018 By: __/s/ Megan Oliver Thompson_ Megan Oliver Thompson

Case 3:18-cv-05352-JD Document 18 Filed 10/09/18 Page 4 of 5
 - 4 - Case No. 18-CV-05352-JST 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO 

REMAND 

14921048.2 

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, Tetra Tech may have 

until October 23, 2018, to file its Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand, and Plaintiffs may 

have until November 6, 2018, to file their Reply. The Motion will be heard on _____________, 

2018. 

 PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 

Hon. John S. Tigar 

United States District Court Judge 

December 6

October 9, 2018 Jon S. Tigar

Case 3:18-cv-05352-JD Document 18 Filed 10/09/18 Page 5 of 5