Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00494/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00494-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 33:1319 Clean Water Act

---

1

STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT AND PROPOSED ORDER 

224310.1

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

RALPH ROBINSON (SBN 51436) 

CHRISTINE STARKIE (SBN 226354) 

WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ, 

EDELMAN & DICKER LLP 

525 Market Street, 17th Floor 

San Francisco, California 94105 

Telephone: (415) 433-0990 

Facsimile: (415) 434-1370 

Attorneys for Defendant 

TOMRA PACIFIC, INC. AND 

TOMRA OF NORTH AMERICA, INC. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – SACRAMENTO DIVISION 

CALIFORNIA SPORTFISHING 

PROTECTION ALLIANCE, a non-profit 

corporation, 

 Plaintiff, 

vs. 

TOMRA PACIFIC, INC., TOMRA OF 

NORTH AMERICA, INC.,

 Defendants. 

Case No. 2:06-cv-00494-DFL-DAD 

STIPULATION TO FURTHER 

EXTEND TIME TO FILE A RESPONSE 

TO THE COMPLAINT AND ORDER 

(Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 

33 U.S.C. §§ 1251 to 1387) 

Complaint Filed: March 3, 2006 

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-144 of the United States District Court, Eastern 

District of California, Plaintiff California Sportfishing Protection Alliance and Defendants 

Tomra Pacific, Inc. and Tomra of North America, Inc., through their respective attorneys, 

hereby stipulate to request that the Court grant Defendants a further extension of thirty days 

to file an answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff’s complaint. A prior stipulation was 

entered into by the parties and submitted to the Court on May 26, 2006, extending the time 

for Defendants to respond to the complaint until June 27, 2006. 

Good cause exists for this extension because the parties have engaged in substantive 

settlement discussions and believe an agreement is imminent. The parties’ resources would 

Case 2:06-cv-00494-DFL-DAD Document 12 Filed 06/29/06 Page 1 of 4
2

STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT AND PROPOSED ORDER 

224310.1

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

be best directed to concluding these negotiations and settling the matter without the need for 

further pleadings. Pursuant to this stipulation, Defendants’ response will be due on or 

before July 27, 2006. This extension will not alter any other deadline or date already fixed 

by the Court. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

Dated: June 27, 2006 WILSON ELSER MOSKOWITZ EDELMAN & 

DICKER LLP 

 By: /s/ Ralph Robinson______

 

Ralph Robinson 

 Attorney for Defendants 

TOMRA PACIFIC, INC., TOMRA NORTH 

AMERICA, INC. 

 [Authorized by attorney on 6/27/2006] 

Dated: June 27, 2006 LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW L. PACKARD 

 By: /s/ Michael Lynes______

 

Michael P. Lynes 

 Attorney for Plaintiff 

CALIFORNIA SPORTFISHING 

PROTECTION ALLIANCE 

[Authorized by attorney on 6/27/2006] 

Case 2:06-cv-00494-DFL-DAD Document 12 Filed 06/29/06 Page 2 of 4
3

STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT AND PROPOSED ORDER 

224310.1

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

ORDER

FOR GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 

Defendants Tomra Pacific, Inc. and Tomra of North America, Inc. shall have a 

further extension of thirty days to file an answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff’s 

complaint. Defendants’ response shall be due on or before July 27, 2006. 

Dated: 6/29/ 2006

______________________________ 

DAVID F. LEVI 

Chief United States District Judge* 

PROOF OF SERVICE

I am a citizen of the United States, I am over the age of eighteen years not a party to 

the within cause; I am employed in the City and County of San Francisco, California and 

my business address is 525 Market Street, 17th Floor, San Francisco, California 94105. On 

this date I served the following document(s): 

STIPULATION TO FURTHER EXTEND TIME TO FILE A RESPONSE TO 

THE COMPLAINT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

Case 2:06-cv-00494-DFL-DAD Document 12 Filed 06/29/06 Page 3 of 4
4

STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT AND PROPOSED ORDER 

224310.1

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

on the party(ies) identified below, through their attorneys of record, by placing true copies 

thereof in sealed envelopes addressed as shown below by the following means of service: 

Counsel for Plaintiff, 

CALIFORNIA SPORTFISHING 

PROTECTION ALLIANCE 

Michael P. Lynes, Esq. 

Law Ofc Andrew Packard 

319 Pleasant St 

Petaluma, CA 94952 

Telephone: (510) 601-1096 

Facsimile: (707) 763-9227 

E-mail: mrlozeau@lozeaulaw.com

Counsel for Plaintiff, CALIFORNIA 

SPORTFISHING PROTECTION 

ALLIANCE 

ANDREW L. PACKARD (Cal. Bar No. 

168690) 

MICHAEL P. LYNES (Cal. Bar No. 

230462) 

Law Offices of Andrew L. Packard 

319 Pleasant Street 

Petaluma, CA 94952 

Tel: (707) 763-7227 

Fax: (707) 763-9227 

E-mail: andrew@packardlawoffices.com

 ̈ Said document(s) was placed for deposit in the United States Postal Service in 

sealed envelopes, with postage fully prepaid for collection and mailing on that date 

following ordinary business practice. 

 ̈ A copy of said document(s) was processed for delivery by Federal Express in a 

sealed Federal Express mailer, with previously made payment arrangements, duly 

addressed, and sent via overnight mail. 

 ̈ A copy of said document(s) was successfully transmitted by facsimile. (Only where 

permitted. Must consult CCP § 1012.5 and California Rules of Court 2001-2011. 

Also consult FRCP Rule 5(e). Not currently authorized in N.D.C.A.) 

 ̈ Said document(s) was personally served by hand this date to the offices of the 

addressee(s) noted above. 

ý Said document(s) was e-filed with the court on this date and automatically emailed 

to the counsel at the addressee(s) noted above. 

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 

forgoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. 

EXECUTED June 27, 2006 in San Francisco, California. 

 

 Sandy E’Bell 

Case 2:06-cv-00494-DFL-DAD Document 12 Filed 06/29/06 Page 4 of 4