Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-06401/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-06401-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1001 E.R.I.S.A.: Employee Retirement

---

Stipulation Enlarging Time to Respond to Complaint Case No. CV 07-6401 MJJ 

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

DICKENSON, PEATMAN & FOGARTY 

A Professional Law Corporation 

Brandon R. Blevans (CSB 197281) 

(bblevans@dpf-law.com) 

Patrick B. Sutton (CSB 223186) 

(psutton@dpf-law.com) 

50 Old Courthouse Square, Suite 200 

Santa Rosa, CA 95404-7922 

Telephone: 707.524.7000 

Facsimile: 707.546.6800 

Attorneys for Defendant 

FRED ADRIANO MASONRY CONTRACTOR, INC. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

 

THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES, in their capacities as 

Trustees of the LABORERS HEALTH AND 

WELFARE TRUST FUND FOR NORTHERN 

CALIFORNIA; LABORERS VACATIONHOLIDAY TRUST FUND FOR NORTHERN 

CALIFORNIA; LABORERS PENSION TRUST 

FUND FOR NORTHERN CALIFORNIA; and 

LABORERS TRAINING AND RETRAINING 

TRUST FUND FOR NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, 

 

 Plaintiffs, 

 vs. 

FRED ADRIANO MASONRY CONTRACTOR, 

INC., A California Corporation, 

 Defendant. 

Case No. CV 07 6401 MJJ 

STIPULATION ENLARGING TIME TO 

ANSWER OR OTHERWISE RESPOND 

[Civil L.R. 6-1(a)] 

 

 

AND ORDER

Case 4:07-cv-06401-PJH Document 5 Filed 01/23/08 Page 1 of 3
 

Stipulation Enlarging Time to Respond to Complaint Case No. CV 07-6401 MJJ 

- 1 -

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 ENLARGING TIME TO ANSWER OR OTHERWISE RESPOND

The parties hereto, through their respective counsel, hereby stipulate as follows: 

1. Plaintiffs’ Complaint was filed and served on December 18, 2007. 

2. Pursuant to Civil L.R. 6-1(a), all plaintiffs and defendant, Fred Adriano Masonry 

Contractor, Inc., (“Adriano”) have stipulated that Adriano shall have a two-week extension of time to 

answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint filed by the plaintiff. This extension will not alter the 

date of any event or deadline already fixed by Court order. 

3. Defendant Adriano shall answer or otherwise respond to the plaintiffs’ Complaint on or 

before Wednesday, February 6, 2008. 

4. Each party waives service of this Stipulation Enlarging Time. 

 IT IS SO STIPULATED. 

Dated: January 22, 2008 DICKENSON, PEATMAN & FOGARTY 

A Professional Law Corporation 

 /s/ 

Patrick B. Sutton 

Attorneys for Defendant 

FRED ANDRIANO MASONRY CONTRACTOR, INC. 

 

Dated: January 18, 2008 WEINBERG, ROGER & ROSENFELD 

 

 /s/ 

 Linda Baldwin Jones 

 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

 

Case 4:07-cv-06401-PJH Document 5 Filed 01/23/08 Page 2 of 3
 

Stipulation Enlarging Time to Respond to Complaint Case No. CV 07-6401 MJJ 

- 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

SIGNATURE ATTESTATION

(U.S.D.C. N.D. Cal. General Order 45, Section X.B.) 

Concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from each other signatory, or 

from the single signatory, in compliance with General Order 45, Section X.B. 

 

DICKENSON, PEATMAN & FOGARTY 

A Professional Law Corporation 

 

Dated: January 22, 2008 

By /s/ 

Patrick B. Sutton 

Attorneys for Defendant 

 FRED ADRIANO MASONRY CONTRACTOR, INC. 

 

1/23/2008

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Martin J. Jenkins

Case 4:07-cv-06401-PJH Document 5 Filed 01/23/08 Page 3 of 3