Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00583/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00583-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Contract Dispute

---

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

84257v1 - 1 -

B

RIG

H

T

A

N

D

B

R

O

W

N

555 NORTH BRAND BOULEVARD

SUITE 2100

GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA 91203

(818) 243-2121 (213) 489-1414

FACSIMILE (818) 243-3225

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED SERVICE BY 

MAIL OF SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY 

DISTRICT’S (“SMUD”) MOTION TO STAY 

SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT 

OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL 

ARLEN ORCHARD (State Bar No. 143015) 

STEVEN M. COHN (State Bar No. 88565) 

6201 “S” Street 

Sacramento, California 95817 

Telephone (916) 732-5847 

Facsimile (916) 732-6581 

BRIGHT AND BROWN 

JAMES S. BRIGHT (State Bar No. 65299) 

MAUREEN J. BRIGHT (State Bar No. 81589) 

BRIAN L. BECKER (State Bar No. 115431) 

SHARON M. APODACA (State Bar No. 213798) 

550 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 2100 

Glendale, California 91203 

Telephone: (818) 243-2121 

Facsimile: (818) 243-3225 

PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP 

PHILIP S. WARDEN (State Bar No. 54752) 

JOHN S. POULOS (State Bar No. 154689) 

400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1700 

Sacramento, California 95814-4419 

Telephone: (916) 329-4700 

Facsimile: (916) 441-3583 

Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant 

SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SACRAMENTO DIVISION 

FRU-CON CONSTRUCTION 

CORPORATION, a Missouri corporation, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY 

DISTRICT, a municipal utility district; 

UTILITY ENGINEERING CORPORATION, 

a Texas corporation, 

Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No. 2:05-CV-00583 LKK GGH 

Related Case No. 2:05-CV-00617 LKK GGH 

STIPULATION AND ORDER RE: 

SERVICE OF SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL 

UTILITY DISTRICT’S (“SMUD”) MOTION 

TO STAY

Date: May 23, 2005 

Time: 10:00 a.m. 

Crtrm: 4 

Judge: Hon. Lawrence K. Karlton 

Case 2:05-cv-00583-LKK -GGH Document 38 Filed 04/29/05 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

84257v1 - 2 -

B

RIG

H

T

A

N

D

B

R

O

W

N

555 NORTH BRAND BOULEVARD

SUITE 2100

GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA 91203

(818) 243-2121 (213) 489-1414

FACSIMILE (818) 243-3225

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED SERVICE BY 

MAIL OF SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY 

DISTRICT’S (“SMUD”) MOTION TO STAY 

SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY 

DISTRICT, a municipal utility district, 

Counterclaimant, 

v. 

FRU-CON CONSTRUCTION 

CORPORATION, a Missouri corporation; 

A. TEICHERT & SON, INC., aka TEICHERT 

CONSTRUCTION, a California corporation, 

Counterdefendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

WHEREAS, on April 25, 2005, SMUD filed with the Court a Notice of Motion and 

Motion of Sacramento Municipal Utility District to Stay Action in Favor of First-Filed State 

Court Lawsuit, and set that motion to be heard on May 23, 2005 at 10:00 a.m.; and 

WHEREAS, SMUD served that Notice of Motion and all supporting papers upon 

counsel for Utility Engineering Corporation (“UE”) by email transmission and first class mail; 

and 

WHEREAS, all other parties were served by hand on April 25, 2005 with the Notice of 

Motion and all supporting papers; and 

WHEREAS, because UE received the foregoing papers by e-mail 28 days prior to the 

hearing date, it will be not adversely affected by the fact that it did not receive those papers by 

hand service; and 

WHEREAS, there are three related motions set to be heard by the Court on May 23, 

2005 in the case of SMUD v. Fru-Con, Case No. 2:05-CV-00617, to which UE is not a party, 

and therefore, judicial economy would be served by having the Motion to Stay heard on the 

noticed date of May 23, 2005: 

NOW, THEREFORE, the parties stipulate as follows: 

1. Utility Engineering Corporation acknowledges receipt by electronic 

transmission of the Notice of Motion to Stay and all supporting papers, and further 

acknowledges that said electronic service was acceptable to UE and effective as of the date it 

Case 2:05-cv-00583-LKK -GGH Document 38 Filed 04/29/05 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

84257v1 - 3 -

B

RIG

H

T

A

N

D

B

R

O

W

N

555 NORTH BRAND BOULEVARD

SUITE 2100

GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA 91203

(818) 243-2121 (213) 489-1414

FACSIMILE (818) 243-3225

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED SERVICE BY 

MAIL OF SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY 

DISTRICT’S (“SMUD”) MOTION TO STAY 

was received; 

2. Thus, Utility Engineering Corporation has no objection to having SMUD’s 

Motion to Stay heard, as noticed, on May 23, 2005; and 

3. Utility Engineering Corporation agrees to submit its own papers respecting the 

Motion to Stay, if any, pursuant to the applicable briefing schedule, assuming service by hand 

on April 25, 2005, and a May 23, 2005 hearing date. 

PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP 

PHILIP S. WARDEN 

JOHN S. POULOS 

400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1700 

Sacramento, California 95814-4419 

By /s/ John S. Poulos 

John S. Poulos 

Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant 

SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT 

Daniel D. McMillan 

Erich R. Luschei 

JONES DAY 

555 West Fifth Street, Suite 4600 

Los Angeles, CA 90013-1025 

By /s/ Daniel D. McMillan 

Daniel D. McMillan 

Attorneys for Defendant 

UTILITY ENGINEERING CORPORATION 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: April 28, 2005. 

 

 /s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

 Lawrence K. Karlton 

 Senior Judge 

Case 2:05-cv-00583-LKK -GGH Document 38 Filed 04/29/05 Page 3 of 3