Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_12-cv-06159/USCOURTS-cand-4_12-cv-06159-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition For Removal--Other Contract

---

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

1

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

CASE NO. C12 6159 (DMR)

HANSON BRIDGETT LLP

KIMON MANOLIUS, SBN 154971

kmanolius@hansonbridgett.com

ALEXANDRA V. ATENCIO, SBN 227251

aatencio@hansonbridgett.com

BRENDAN A. QUIGLEY, SBN 281427

BQuigley@hansonbridgett.com

425 Market Street, 26th Floor

San Francisco, California 94105

Telephone: (415) 777-3200

Facsimile: (415) 541-9366

Attorneys for Defendants

PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS

BOARD, KAREN ANTION, JUANITA VIGIL, MIKE JOHNSON, MIKE SCANLON, CHARLES HARVEY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

OAKLAND DIVISION

TRANSIT CONSTRUCTORS, LP and 

B&C TRANSIT, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

PARSONS TRANSPORTATION GROUP, 

INC., PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT 

POWERS BOARD, KAREN ANTION,

KAREN ANTION CONSULTING, LLC, 

JUANITA VIGIL, MIKE JOHNSON, MIKE 

SCANLON, CHARLES HARVEY and 

DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,

Defendant.

CASE NO. C12-6159 DMR

STIPULATION RE: DEFENDANTS 

PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT 

POWERS BOARD, KAREN ANTION, 

MIKE JOHNSON, JUANITA VIGIL, MIKE 

SCANLON AND CHUCK HARVEY'S 

ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL 

COMPLAINT TO BE DEEMED ANSWER 

TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED 

COMPLAINT; [PROPOSED] ORDER 

THEREON

WHEREAS, 

1. On October 5, 2012, Plaintiffs TRANSIT CONSTRUCTORS, LP and B&C

TRANSIT, INC. (collectively "Plaintiffs") commenced this action in the Superior Court of 

the State of California, County of San Mateo, entitled Transit Constructors, LP and B&C 

Case 4:12-cv-06159-DMR Document 16 Filed 01/07/13 Page 1 of 4 Case4:12-cv-06159-DMR Document12 Filed01/04/13 Page1 of 4
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 AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 4912503.1

CASE NO. C12 6159 (DMR)

2

Transit, Inc. v. Parsons Transportation Group, Inc., Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers 

Board, Karen Antion, Juanita Vigil, Mike Johnson, Mike Scanlon, Charles Harvey and 

Does 1 through 50, Case No. CIV 517205 (“State Court Action”). 

2. On December 4, 2012, Defendants Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board, 

Karen Antion, Juanita Vigil, Mike Johnson, Mike Scanlon and Charles Harvey (collectively 

“Defendants”) timely filed an Answer to the Complaint in the State Court Action.

3. On December 5, 2012, Defendants properly removed the State Court 

Action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1446. This Court has original jurisdiction over this action under 

28 U.S.C. § 1331, which derives from 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in that Plaintiffs' Complaint 

alleges a claim based on this federal law.

4. On December 21, 2012, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint in this 

action. The First Amended Complaint added a party, Karen Antion Consulting, LLC. The 

First Amended Complaint also made a few revisions and additions to the original 

Complaint, but did not add or delete any claims against Defendants.

5. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between Defendants 

PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS BOARD, KAREN ANTION, JUANITA VIGIL, 

MIKE JOHNSON, MIKE SCANLON and CHARLES HARVEY (“Defendants”), and 

Plaintiffs TRANSIT CONSTRUCTORS, LP and B&C TRANSIT, INC. (hereinafter 

“Plaintiffs”), by and through their attorneys of record, that Defendants’ answer and 

general denial to Plaintiffs’ original Complaint in the State Court Action be deemed their 

answer and denial to the allegations of the First Amended Complaint herein. 

The parties respectfully request the Court enter an order pursuant to the parties’

stipulation set forth above. 

6. Alternatively, if the Court does not grant the parties' proposed order upon 

the above-stipulation, Defendants and Plaintiffs STIPULATE AND AGREE that 

Defendants shall have a three week extension of time in which to answer or otherwise 

respond to the First Amended Complaint, from January 7, 2013 up to and including 

Case 4:12-cv-06159-DMR Document 16 Filed 01/07/13 Page 2 of 4 Case4:12-cv-06159-DMR Document12 Filed01/04/13 Page2 of 4
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 AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 4912503.1

CASE NO. C12 6159 (DMR)

3

January 28, 2013. This extension will not alter the date of any event or any deadline 

already fixed by Court order.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

DATED: January 4, 2013 ROGER, JOSEPH, O'DONNELL

By: /s/ Joseph C. McGowna, Jr. 

Joseph C. McGowan, Jr.

Attorneys for Plaintiffs TRANSIT 

CONSTRUCTORS, LP and B&C TRANSIT, 

INC.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

DATED: January 4, 2013 HANSON BRIDGETT LLP

By: /s/ Alexandra V. Atencio

Alexandra V. Atencio SBN 227251

Attorneys for Defendants

PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT 

POWERS BOARD, KAREN ANTION, 

JUANITA VIGIL, MIKE JOHNSON, MIKE

SCANLON and CHARLES HARVEY

SIGNATURES UNDER LOCAL RULE 5-1(i)(3)

Pursuant to Local Rule 5-1(i)(3) of the United States District Court, Northern 

District of California, I, Alexandra V. Atencio—the ECF User whose User ID and 

Password are used in the filing of this document—hereby attest that the concurrence to 

the filing of this document has been obtained from the other signatory to this document.

/s/ Alexandra V. Atencio

ALEXANDRA V. ATENCIO

Case 4:12-cv-06159-DMR Document 16 Filed 01/07/13 Page 3 of 4 Case4:12-cv-06159-DMR Document12 Filed01/04/13 Page3 of 4
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 AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 4912503.1

CASE NO. C12 6159 (DMR)

4

ORDER

The parties having so stipulated,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that Defendants PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT 

POWERS BOARD, KAREN ANTION, JUANITA VIGIL, MIKE JOHNSON, MIKE 

SCANLON and CHARLES HARVEY’s (“Defendants”) answer and general denial to 

Plaintiffs’ original Complaint in the State Court Action be deemed their answer and denial 

to the allegations of the First Amended Complaint herein.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January ___, 2013

Hon. Donna M. Ryu

Case4:12-cv-06159-DMR Document12 Filed01/04/13 Page4 of 4

7

Case 4:12-cv-06159-DMR Document 16 Filed 01/07/13 Page 4 of 4