Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03749/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03749-5/pdf.json

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

---

Farella Braun & Martel LLP 

235 Montgomery Street, 17th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94104 

(415) 954-4400 

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 

ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND / Case No. C 

06 3749 JSW -1- 18972\1134104.1

James A. Bruen (State Bar No. 043880) 

Charles M. Sink (State Bar No. 078168) 

Carl E. Switzer (State Bar No. 211858) 

Arjun Agarwal (State Bar No. 233576) 

Farella Braun & Martel LLP 

235 Montgomery Street, 17th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94104 

Telephone: (415) 954-4400 

Facsimile: (415) 954-4480 

Attorneys for Defendant 

GE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS GLOBAL 

SIGNALING, LLC 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA RAPID 

TRANSIT DISTRICT, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

GE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS 

GLOBAL SIGNALING, LLC, and DOE 1 

through DOE 100, inclusive, 

Defendants. 

Case No. C 06 3749 JSW 

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING 

PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO FILE SECOND 

AMENDED COMPLAINT 

Complaint Filed: June 13, 2006 

Trial Date: Not set 

 

Case 3:06-cv-03749-JSW Document 26 Filed 12/14/2006 Page 1 of 2
 Case 3:06-cv-03749-JSW Document 31 Filed 12/18/06 Page 1 of 2
Farella Braun & Martel LLP 

235 Montgomery Street, 17th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94104 

(415) 954-4400 

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 

ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND / Case No. C 06 3749 

JSW - 2 - 18972\1134104.1

Having considered the Stipulation to Withdraw Motion to Dismiss or, In the Alternative, 

For More Definitive Statement submitted by Defendant GE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS 

GLOBAL SIGNALING, LLC (“GE”) and Plaintiff SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA RAPID 

TRANSIT DISTRICT (“BART”), and for good cause appearing therefore, IT IS HEREBY 

ORDERED THAT: 

1. BART shall have leave to amend in order that it may file a Second Amended 

Complaint for the sole purpose of omitting its allegations of fictitious defendants; 

2. BART’s Second Amended Complaint must be filed no later than 

December 22, 2006; 

3. BART’s Second Amended Complaint shall contain no new allegations against GE, 

shall name no parties not named in the Amended Complaint, and may differ from the Amended 

Complaint only with respect to the deletion of Paragraph 3, reformatting and, should BART 

desire, correction to the numbering of its existing Counts; and 

4. GE will not file any Rule 12 motion challenging such Second Amended Complaint 

and must file an answer to the Second Amended Complaint no later than 30 days from the date 

that it is served upon GE. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: December ___, 2006 

 JEFFFREY S. WHITE 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 3:06-cv-03749-JSW Document 26 Filed 12/14/2006 Page 2 of 2

18

Case 3:06-cv-03749-JSW Document 31 Filed 12/18/06 Page 2 of 2