Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01892/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01892-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 385
Nature of Suit: Property Damage - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Property Damage

---

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 REGARDING FILING OF AMENDED COMPLAINT AND TIME TO 

RESPOND THERETO – Page 1; Case No. 1:15-cv-01892-TLN-KJN

Richard N. Sieving, Esq. (SBN 133634)

Luke G. Pears-Dickson, Esq. (SBN 296581)

THE SIEVING LAW FIRM, A.P.C.

100 Howe Avenue, Suite 220N

Sacramento, CA 95825

Telephone: (916) 444-3366

Facsimile: (916) 444-1223

rsieving@sievinglawfirm.com

lpearsdickson@sievinglawfirm.com

Shanon J. Carson, admitted pro hac vice

Lawrence Deutsch, admitted pro hac vice

Jacob M. Polakoff, admitted pro hac vice

BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.

1622 Locust Street

Philadelphia, PA 19103

Telephone: (215) 875-3000

Facsimile: (215) 875-4604

scarson@bm.net

ldeutsch@bm.net

jpolakoff@bm.net

Charles E. Schaffer, admitted pro hac vice

LEVIN, FISHBEIN, SEDRAN & BERMAN

510 Walnut Street, Suite 500

Philadelphia, PA 19106

Telephone: (215) 592-1500

Facsimile: (215) 592-4663

cschaffer@lfsblaw.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Jeffrey Snyder and Martin and Beth Melnick

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEFFREY SNYDER and MARTIN and 

BETH MELNICK, on behalf of themselves 

and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

TAMKO BUILDING PRODUCTS, INC., 

a Missouri Corporation,

Defendant.

NO. 1:15–CV–1892–TLN–KJN

STIPULATION REGARDING FILING OF 

AMENDED COMPLAINT AND TIME TO 

RESPOND THERETO; AND ORDER

Case 1:15-cv-01892-TLN-KJN Document 35 Filed 05/06/16 Page 1 of 4
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 REGARDING FILING OF AMENDED COMPLAINT AND TIME TO 

RESPOND THERETO – Page 2; Case No. 1:15-cv-01892-TLN-KJN

Plaintiffs Jeffrey Snyder and Martin and Beth Melnick (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) request 

that this Court enter the proposed order regarding the filing of an amended complaint and time to 

respond thereto (the “Order”). Defendant TAMKO Building Products, Inc. (“Defendant” or 

“TAMKO”) does not object to the Order.

WHEREAS, on March 1, 2016, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint and a 

motion to strike class allegations (the “Motions”). (Dkt. 24-25.) The Motions are currently set to 

be heard by the Court on May 19, 2016 at 2:00 p.m. (the “Hearing”). (Dkt. 26-27.)

WHEREAS, pursuant to the Local Rules, Rule 230, Plaintiffs’ briefs in opposition to the 

Motions are currently due to be filed by May 5, 2016.

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs seek leave to amend the Complaint in order to (i) address some of 

the issues raised in Defendant’s motion to dismiss, and (ii) add additional plaintiffs. Plaintiffs’ 

proposed amended complaint (“Amended Complaint”) is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.

WHEREAS, Defendant believes that the Amended Complaint fails to state a claim for 

which relief can be granted and intends to file a motion to dismiss rather than oppose the 

amendment.

WHEREAS, in light of Plaintiffs’ requested amendment the Hearing should be continued.

NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereby stipulate as follows:

1. Upon the Court granting the [Proposed] Order, Plaintiffs shall file their Amended 

Complaint.

2. The Hearing shall be continued.

3. Defendant may have forty-five (45) days from the filing of the Amended 

Complaint to respond in writing to the Amended Complaint and file any motions.

4. Defendant shall reserve their motion(s) so as to give Plaintiffs not less than fortyfive (45) days to oppose the motions in writing.

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 1:15-cv-01892-TLN-KJN Document 35 Filed 05/06/16 Page 2 of 4
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 REGARDING FILING OF AMENDED COMPLAINT AND TIME TO 

RESPOND THERETO – Page 3; Case No. 1:15-cv-01892-TLN-KJN

Dated: May 5, 2016 

By: /s/ Jacob M. Polakoff

Shanon J. Carson, admitted pro hac vice 

Lawrence Deutsch, admitted pro hac vice 

Jacob M. Polakoff, admitted pro hac vice 

BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.

1622 Locust Street

Philadelphia, PA 19103

Telephone: (215) 875-3000

Facsimile: (215) 875-4604

scarson@bm.net

ldeutsch@bm.net

jpolakoff@bm.net

Richard N. Sieving, Esq. (SBN 133634)

Luke G. Pears-Dickson, Esq. (SBN 296581)

THE SIEVING LAW FIRM, A.P.C.

100 Howe Avenue, Suite 220N

Sacramento, CA 95825

Telephone: (916) 444-3366

Facsimile: (916) 444-1223

rsieving@sievinglawfirm.com

lpearsdickson@sievinglawfirm.com

Charles E. Schaffer, admitted pro hac vice 

LEVIN, FISHBEIN, SEDRAN & BERMAN

510 Walnut Street, Suite 500

Philadelphia, PA 19106

Telephone: (215) 592-1500

Facsimile: (215) 592-4663

cschaffer@lfsblaw.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Dated: May 5, 2016 

By: /s/ Charles S. Painter (as authorized on 

5/5/16) 

Charles S. Painter 

Graham M. Cridland

ERICKSEN ARBUTHNOT

100 Howe Avenue, Suite 110 South

Sacramento, CA 95825-8201

Telephone: (916) 483-5181 

Facsimile: (916) 483-7558 

cpainter@ericksenarbuthnot.com 

gcridland@ericksenarbuthnot.com 

John H. Beisner, admitted pro hac vice

Jessica D. Miller, admitted pro hac vice

SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & 

FLOM LLP

1440 New York Avenue, N.W

Washington, D.C. 20005-2111

Telephone: (202) 371-7850

Facsimile: (202) 661-0525

john.beisner@skadden.com

jessica.miller@skadden.com

Richard T. Bernardo, pro hac vice forthcoming

SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & 

FLOM LLP

Four Times Square

New York, NY

Telephone: (212) 735-3000

Facsimile: (212) 735-2000

richard.bernardo@skadden.com

Attorneys for Defendant

Case 1:15-cv-01892-TLN-KJN Document 35 Filed 05/06/16 Page 3 of 4
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 REGARDING FILING OF AMENDED COMPLAINT AND TIME TO 

RESPOND THERETO – Page 4; Case No. 1:15-cv-01892-TLN-KJN

ORDER

GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, it is hereby ordered that:

1. Plaintiffs are granted leave to amend the Complaint and shall file the Amended 

Complaint.

2. The hearings on Defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint and motion to strike 

class allegations are continued.

3. Defendant may have forty-five (45) days from the filing of the Amended 

Complaint to respond in writing to the Amended Complaint and file any motion.

4. Defendant shall reserve their motion(s) so as to give Plaintiffs not less than fortyfive (45) days to oppose the motions in writing.

Dated: May 6, 2016

Case 1:15-cv-01892-TLN-KJN Document 35 Filed 05/06/16 Page 4 of 4