Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01196/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01196-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1132 E.R.I.S.A.-Employee Benefits

---

{12748/15246/AAM/904393.DOC;} 1

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE SECOND 

EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT 

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

Audrey A. Millemann, California State Bar No. 124954 

WEINTRAUB GENSHLEA CHEDIAK 

Law Corporation 

400 Capitol Mall, 11th Floor 

Sacramento, California 95814 

Main: 916/558-6000 

Fax: 916/446-1611 

Attorneys for Defendants Susan Yeager, Michael Yeager, 

Donald Yeager, and Sharon Yeager 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

IN AND FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

GENERAL CHARLES E. “CHUCK” 

YEAGER, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

SUSAN YEAGER, MICHAEL YEAGER, 

DONALD YEAGER, SHARON 

YEAGER, YEAGER, INC., SCOTT 

ROBERTSON, ROBERTSON and 

WOODFORD, LLP, DEWEY 

HARPAINTER, CINDY SIEGFRIED, 

AND DOES 1 through 10, 

 Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 2:06-CV-01196-DFL-PAN 

(JFM) 

STIPULATION AND ORDER RE 

SECOND EXTENSION OF TIME TO 

RESPOND TO COMPLAINT 

 

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between all of the parties, 

through their respective counsel of record, that the time within which defendants Susan 

Yeager, Michael Yeager, Donald Yeager, Sharon Yeager, Yeager, Inc., Scott Robertson, 

Robertson and Woodford, LLP, and Dewey Harpainter may respond to the complaint is 

extended through and including August 29, 2006. The complaint was served on each of 

the defendants in June 2006, and each of the defendants obtained an extension of time to 

respond through a date in early or mid August 2006. Good cause exists for this short 

additional extension of time in that counsel Peter E. Glick is substituting into this action on 

Case 2:06-cv-01196-JAM-EFB Document 29 Filed 07/18/06 Page 1 of 3
{12748/15246/AAM/904393.DOC;} 2

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE SECOND 

EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT 

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

behalf of defendant Yeager, Inc. and that the parties believe it will be more efficient to 

have a single date for all defendants to respond to the complaint. This is the second 

extension of time requested. 

Dated: July 13, 2006 /s/ Dewey V. Harpainter 

 Dewey V. Harpainter 

 State Bar No. 099756 

 Defendant 

Dated: July 13, 2006 WEINTRAUB GENSHLEA CHEDIAK 

 Law Corporation 

 By: /s/ Audrey A. Millemann 

 Audrey A. Millemann 

 State Bar No. 124954 

 Attorneys for Defendants Susan Yeager, Michael 

 Yeager, Donald Yeager, and Sharon Yeager 

Dated: July 13, 2006 PETER E. GLICK 

 Attorney at Law 

 By: /s/ Peter E. Glick 

 Peter E. Glick 

 State Bar No. 127979 

 Attorneys for Defendant Yeager, Inc. 

Dated: July 13, 2006 JOHNSON SCHACHTER & LEWIS

 A Professional Law Corporation 

 By: /s/ Robert H. Johnson 

 Robert H. Johnson 

 State Bar No. 048067 

 Attorneys for Defendants Scott Robertson and 

 Robertson and Woodford, LLP 

Case 2:06-cv-01196-JAM-EFB Document 29 Filed 07/18/06 Page 2 of 3
{12748/15246/AAM/904393.DOC;} 3

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE SECOND 

EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT 

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

Dated: July 13, 2006 George A. Roberts

 By: /s/ George A. Roberts 

 George A. Roberts 

 State Bar No. 77916 

 Attorneys for Plaintiff 

ORDER

It is so ordered. 

Dated: July 18, 2006 /s/ David F. Levi______________

 David F. Levi 

 Judge, United States District Court 

Case 2:06-cv-01196-JAM-EFB Document 29 Filed 07/18/06 Page 3 of 3