Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00905/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00905-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Breach of 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 ORDER DEEMING RESPONSIVE PLEADING BY DEFENDANT STANTON, KAY & 

WATSON TO BE THE RESPONSIVE PLEADINGS OF DEFENDANTS JAMES WATSON AND EDWARD MEVI 

John H. Feeney - 083395 

Thomas J. D'Amato - 219174 

MURPHY, PEARSON, BRADLEY & FEENEY 

88 Kearny Street, 10th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94108-5530 

Tel: (415) 788-1900 

Fax: (415) 393-8087 

Attorneys for Defendants 

STANTON, KAY & WATSON, JAMES WATSON AND EDWARD MEVI 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SACRAMENTO DIVISION 

 

PENSION TRUST FUND FOR THE 

OPERATING ENGINEERS, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

MCMORGAN & COMPANY, LLC, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No.: 2:06-CV-00905-WSB-PAN 

STIPULATION AND ORDER DEEMING 

RESPONSIVE PLEADING BY 

DEFENDANT STANTON, KAY & 

WATSON TO BE THE RESPONSIVE 

PLEADINGS OF DEFENDANTS JAMES 

WATSON AND EDWARD MEVI 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:06-cv-00905-WBS-EFB Document 36 Filed 08/10/06 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

- 2 - 

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

STIPULATION AND ORDER DEEMING RESPONSIVE PLEADING BY DEFENDANT STANTON, KAY & 

WATSON TO BE THE RESPONSIVE PLEADINGS OF DEFENDANTS JAMES WATSON AND EDWARD MEVI 

WHEREAS, the law firm of Murphy, Pearson, Bradley & Feeney represents Defendants 

STANTON, KAY & WATSON (“SKW”), JAMES WATSON and EDWARD MEVI in the aboveentitled action; 

WHEREAS, Defendant SKW electronically filed and served its responsive pleading, entitled 

MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT REGARDING FORECLOSURE SALE; 

MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS’ IMPROPER REQUESTS FOR RELIEF; AND 

ALTERNATIVELY, MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITIVE STATEMENT on August 4, 2006 (“The 

Motion”) pursuant to stipulation between counsel; 

WHEREAS, through inadvertence, mistake and/or excusable neglect, The Motion was not 

made on behalf of Mr. James Watson or Mr. Edward Mevi in that their names were omitted from the 

pleadings; 

WHEREAS, The Motion should have been made on behalf of Mr. Watson and Mr. Mevi upon 

the same basis as those asserted in The Motion; 

WHEREAS, upon immediately discovering the omission, Defense counsel notified Plaintiffs’ 

counsel of the inadvertent mistake; 

WHEREAS, no cross-complaint has been asserted by any other party(ies) against SKW, Mr. 

Watson or Mr. Mevi; 

WHEREAS, it is in the interest of justice that The Motion be deemed filed on behalf of Mr. 

Watson and Mr. Mevi, individually; 

COMES NOW, Plaintiffs and Defendants SKW, Mr. Watson and Mr. Mevi, by and through 

their respective counsel, hereby STIPULATE as follows: 

(1) The MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT REGARDING 

FORECLOSURE SALE; MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS’ IMPROPER REQUESTS FOR 

RELIEF; AND ALTERNATIVELY, MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITIVE STATEMENT which was 

electronically filed and served on August 4, 2006 by Defendant SKW, shall be deemed, and is in fact, 

the responsive pleading of Defendant JAMES WATSON and EDWARD MEVI; 

(2) JAMES WATSON and EDWARD MEVI are joined in The Motion for all purposes; and 

/ / / 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:06-cv-00905-WBS-EFB Document 36 Filed 08/10/06 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

- 3 - 

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

STIPULATION AND ORDER DEEMING RESPONSIVE PLEADING BY DEFENDANT STANTON, KAY & 

WATSON TO BE THE RESPONSIVE PLEADINGS OF DEFENDANTS JAMES WATSON AND EDWARD MEVI 

(3) Plaintiffs shall raise no objection or opposition to The Motion based upon the inadvertent 

mistake herein described and shall not take any action to enter a default judgment against Mr. Watson 

or Mr. Mevi as a result of the inadvertent mistake herein described. 

IT IS SO STIPULATED. 

Dated: August 7, 2006 

MURPHY, PEARSON, BRADLEY & FEENEY 

By /s/ Thomas J. D’Amato 

Thomas J. D'Amato 

Attorneys for Defendants 

STANTON, KAY & WATSON, JAMES WATSON 

AND EDWARD MEVI 

Dated: August 7, 2006 

MASTAGNI, HOLSTEDT, AMICK, MILLER, 

JOHNSEN & UHRHAMMER 

By /s/ Amanda S. Uhrhammer 

Amanda S. Uhrhammer 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

PENSION TRUST FUND FOR THE OPERATING 

ENGINEERS 

Pursuant to the Local Rules of the United States District Court, Eastern District of California, 

Rule 83-143, the forgoing Stipulation is approved by the Court and entered as the Order of this Court. 

DATED: August 9, 2006 

TJD.10333219.doc 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:06-cv-00905-WBS-EFB Document 36 Filed 08/10/06 Page 3 of 3