Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05284/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05284-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

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 PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT TO BE FILED NUNC PRO TUNC AS OF NOV. 2, 2005

LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL W. MILWARD

Michael W. Milward- SBN 99962

775 Baywood Drive, Suite 185

Petaluma, CA 94954

Telephone: (707) 769-2290

Facsimile: (707) 769-2999

Attorneys for Individual Plaintiffs

Michael Chouinard and Anita Chouinard

KIRTLAND & PACKARD LLP

Michael L. Kelly - SBN 82063

2361 Rosecrans Avenue

Fourth Floor

El Segundo, California 90245-4923

Telephone: (310) 536-1000

Facsimile: (310) 536-1001

LEHMANN LAW OFFICE

Harry V. Lehmann - SBN 77151

1450 Grant Ave., Suite 205

P.O. Box 1846

Novato, California 94948-1846

Telephone: (415) 897-2121

Facsimile: (415) 898-6959

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Michael Chouinard and all others

similarly situated

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL CHOUINARD and ANITA

CHOUINARD,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

JT EATON & CO., Inc, an Ohio Corporation,

Defendant and Third Party Plaintiff,

vs. 

HACCO, Inc.,

Third Party Defendant.

 /

 No. 1: 03 CV 5284 AWI DLB

ORDER FOR PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND

AMENDED COMPLAINT TO BE FILED

NUNC PRO TUNC AS OF 

NOVEMBER 2, 2005 

 

Case 1:03-cv-05284-AWI-DLB Document 111 Filed 10/30/06 Page 1 of 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 ORDER FOR PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT TO BE FILED NUNC PRO TUNC AS OF NOV. 2, 2005

- 2 -

On November 2, 2005, Judge Ishii issued an “Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend or Correct the First Amended Complaint” pursuant to F.R.C.P. 15.

Attached to Plaintiffs’ Motion was a proposed Second Amended Complaint. The Order granted

Plaintiffs’ motion, with the exception that it was ordered the Complaint must not be amended to

state any claims alleging ineffectiveness of product.

Defendant Eaton filed an Answer to the Proposed Second Amended Complaint which was

attached to the Motion to Amend before Plaintiffs’ had separately filed a Second Amended

Complaint. Plaintiffs’ now seek to file the Second Amended Complaint.

To correct the sequence of filing of these pleadings, IT IS ORDERED that the Second

Amended Complaint submitted by Plaintiffs concurrent with this Order, be filed nunc pro tunc,

and with a filing date of November 2, 2005.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: October 30, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05284-AWI-DLB Document 111 Filed 10/30/06 Page 2 of 2