Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02649/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02649-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Personal Injury

---

DEFENDANTS’ JOINT EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO 

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND FOR LEAVE TO FILE SEPARATE STATEMENTS 

Case No. 05-2649 

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 

Stevens & 

O’Connell LLP

CHARLES J. STEVENS (CSBN 106981) 

TODD M. NOONAN (CSBN 172962) 

STEVENS & O’CONNELL LLP 

400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1400 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Telephone: (916) 329-9111 

Facsimile: (916) 329-9110 

ANDREW G. McBRIDE (Pro Hac Vice) 

JOSHUA S. TURNER (Pro Hac Vice) 

WILEY, REIN & FIELDING LLP 

1776 K Street NW 

Washington, DC 20006 

Attorneys for Defendants 

Modoc RSA Limited Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless and 

Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MARY A. JASSO; HIGINIO R. JASSO; 

SUZANNE M. AINSLIE; GILBERT E. 

JASSO; TIMOTHY E. AINSLIE; JANICE L. 

LOPEZ; GAIL I. GRIFFITH; GILBERT 

TIFFEE; DOROTHY M. TIFFEE; ILLA L. 

GARCIA; BENJAMIN G. GARCIA; 

BENJAMIN J. GARCIA; TERESA 

HUDDELSTON-GARCIA; AND ON 

BEHALF OF ALL OTHER FAMILY 

MEMBERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, 

BORN AND UNBORN, 

 Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

CITIZENS TELECOMMUNICATIONS 

COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, INC.; 

UNITED STATES CELLULAR 

CORPORATION; CALIFORNIA RURAL 

SERVICES AREA #1 INC.; MODOC RSA 

LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; VERIZON 

WIRELESS; VALLEY INDUSTRIAL 

TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC.; SIERRA 

PACIFIC POWER; SURPRISE VALLEY 

ELECTRIC; ALTURAS RANCHES LLC; 

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD ENGINEER; 

DOES 1-1,000 INCLUSIVE, 

 Defendants. 

 Case No. 05-2649 GEB EFB PS 

DEFENDANTS’ JOINT EX PARTE 

APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF 

TIME TO RESPOND TO AMENDED 

COMPLAINT AND FOR LEAVE TO FILE 

SEPARATE STATEMENTS 

[L.R. 6-144] 

Courtroom: 25 (8th Floor) 

Judge: Magistrate Edmund F. Brennan 

Case 2:05-cv-02649-GEB-EFB Document 139 Filed 09/24/07 Page 1 of 7
1

DEFENDANTS’ JOINT EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO 

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND FOR LEAVE TO FILE SEPARATE STATEMENTS 

Case No. 05-2649 

Stevens & 

O’Connell LLP

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 

Pursuant to Local Rule 6-144(c), the undersigned defendants, through their counsel of 

record, hereby request a 30 day extension of time to respond to the Plaintiffs’ First Amended 

Complaint. In support of this request, Defendants aver as follows: 

1. Plaintiffs in this matter are proceeding in propria persona. This matter has 

therefore been assigned to Magistrate Judge Brennan pursuant to Local Rules 72-302, 303 and 

304 and 28 U.S.C. § 636. 

2. On January 9, 2007, Magistrate Judge Brennan issued a ruling dismissing 

Plaintiffs’ causes of action, with leave to amend. 

3. On February 2, 2007, plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint. 

4. On February 12, 2007, given the complex issues raised therein and the difficulties 

of coordinating a joint response by numerous defendants, Defendants sought additional time to 

respond to the First Amended Complaint. The Court granted this request on February 16, 2007. 

5. On March 12, 2007, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the First Amended 

Complaint. 

6. On July 30, 2007, the Magistrate recommended granting in part and denying in 

part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. The District Court adopted these recommendations in full 

on September 13, 2007. As a result, Plaintiffs’ request for a remand was denied and Plaintiffs’ 

claims alleging that Defendants engaged in an ultrahazardous activity have been dismissed, but 

Plaintiffs’ claims based on negligence per se and Section 206 of the Communications Act will 

proceed. 

7. Defendants’ response date under the Federal Rules is presently October 1, 2007. 

See F.R.Civ.Proc. Rule 6, 15(a). 

8. Pursuant to an order entered on February 1, 2006, a Joint Status Conference 

Statement is also due within 20 days of the District Court’s decision. 

9. As the Court knows from the Motion to Dismiss, in addition to raising complex 

regulatory issues, the First Amended Complaint contains a raft of complicated factual allegations 

Case 2:05-cv-02649-GEB-EFB Document 139 Filed 09/24/07 Page 2 of 7
2

DEFENDANTS’ JOINT EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO 

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND FOR LEAVE TO FILE SEPARATE STATEMENTS 

Case No. 05-2649 

Stevens & 

O’Connell LLP

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 

that will require careful review. Defendants therefore seek additional time to develop responses 

to these factual allegations. 

10. Defendants have made this application directly to the Court under Local Rule 6-

144(c) rather than by seeking a stipulation from plaintiffs in light of the number of plaintiffs and 

their pro se status. There are at least thirteen plaintiffs, all of whom are proceeding in propria 

persona in this matter. Obtaining agreement from each of the plaintiffs to the extension in the 

limited time available would be impractical, if not impossible. Complicating matters, defendants 

also do not have complete contact information for each plaintiff. 

12. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, defendants request a 30-day extension of 

time to file their response, to and including October 31, 2007. 

13. For the reasons set forth in paragraph 10, coordinating a Joint Status Conference 

Statement will likely be difficult or impossible. Defendants thus seek leave to jointly file one 

separate statement, with Plaintiffs filing their own Separate Statement. Given the complicated 

logistics surrounding a joint filing by nine Defendants, Defendants further seek an enlargement 

of time to file their statement to and including November 9, 2007. 

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing 

in true and correct. Executed this 20th day of September 2007, at Sacramento, California. 

 STEVENS & O’CONNELL LLP 

/s/ TODD M. NOONAN 

By: 

 TODD M. NOONAN 

Attorneys for Defendant 

Modoc RSA Limited Partnership d/b/a 

Verizon Wireless 

Case 2:05-cv-02649-GEB-EFB Document 139 Filed 09/24/07 Page 3 of 7
3

DEFENDANTS’ JOINT EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO 

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND FOR LEAVE TO FILE SEPARATE STATEMENTS 

Case No. 05-2649 

Stevens & 

O’Connell LLP

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 

Undersigned counsel, on behalf of their respective clients, hereby join in this request. 

 GORDON & REES LLP 

/s/ MICHAEL D. WELCH 

(as authorized on 9/19/07) 

By: 

MICHAEL D. WELCH 

Attorneys for Defendant 

Citizens Telecommunications Company of 

California, Inc. 

 MORRIS, PICKERING, & PETERSON 

/s/ JACEY PRUPAS 

(as authorized on 9/20/07) 

By: ____

 WILLIAM E. PETERSON 

 JACEY PRUPAS 

 Attorneys for Defendant 

 Sierra Pacific Power 

 LEWIS, BRISBOIS, BISGAARD & SMITH, LLP 

/s/ THOMAS D. NEILSEN 

(as authorized on 9/20/07) 

By: ____

 THOMAS D. NEILSEN 

 Attorneys for Defendant 

 Surprise Valley Electric 

Case 2:05-cv-02649-GEB-EFB Document 139 Filed 09/24/07 Page 4 of 7
4

DEFENDANTS’ JOINT EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO 

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND FOR LEAVE TO FILE SEPARATE STATEMENTS 

Case No. 05-2649 

Stevens & 

O’Connell LLP

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 

IT IS SO ORDERED. Defendants shall have until October 31, 2007, to file their 

responsive pleading to Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint. Defendants are relieved of the 

obligation to confer and file a Joint Status Conference Statement. Defendants have leave to 

jointly file one separate statement no later than November 9, 2007. 

Dated: September 24, 2007. 

 ______________________________________ 

 EDMUND F. BRENNAN 

 United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 2:05-cv-02649-GEB-EFB Document 139 Filed 09/24/07 Page 5 of 7
5

DEFENDANTS’ JOINT EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO 

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND FOR LEAVE TO FILE SEPARATE STATEMENTS 

Case No. 05-2649 

Stevens & 

O’Connell LLP

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 

 PROOF OF SERVICE 

 I am employed in the County of Sacramento, State of California. I am over the age of 18 

and am not a party to this action; my business address is 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1400, 

Sacramento, CA 95814. 

 On September 20, 2007, I served the foregoing documents described as 

DEFENDANTS’ JOINT EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF 

TIME TO RESPOND TO AMENDED COMPLAINT AND FOR LEAVE TO FILE 

SEPARATE STATEMENTS 

 by placing the original a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed 

envelope addressed as follows: See below. 

Mary A. Jasso 

P.O. Box 85 

Likely, CA 96116 

Higinio R. Jasso 

P.O. Box 85 

Likely, CA 96116 

Suzanne M. Ainslie 

P.O. Box 2964 

Sitka, AK 99835 

Gilbert E. Jasso 

P.O. Box 85 

Likely, CA 96116 

Timothy E. Ainslie 

P.O. Box 2964 

Sitka, AK 99835

Janice L. Lopez 

P.O. Box 9998 

Baker, CA 92309 

Gail I. Griffith 

P.O. Box 95 

Likely, CA 96116 

Gilbert Tiffee 

P.O. Box 85 

Likely, CA 96116 

Dorothy M. Tiffee 

P.O. Box 85 

Likely, CA 96116 

Illa L. Garcia 

P.O. Box 585 

Bieber, CA 96009 

Benjamin G. Garcia 

P.O. Box 585 

Bieber, CA 96009 

Benjamin J. Garcia 

P.O. Box 585 

Bieber, CA 96009 

Teresa Huddelston-Garcia 

P.O. Box 585 

Bieber, CA 96009 

 BY FACSIMILE. On ____________, I caused a facsimile transmission from our office 

facsimile telephone number (916/329-9110) to counsel listed above as indicated. The 

facsimile transmission was without error and completed prior to 5:00 p.m. A copy of the 

transmission report is available upon request. 

 BY U.S. MAIL. I am readily familiar with the firm’s practice of collection and 

processing correspondence on the same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at 

Sacramento, California, in the ordinary course of business. 

Case 2:05-cv-02649-GEB-EFB Document 139 Filed 09/24/07 Page 6 of 7
6

DEFENDANTS’ JOINT EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO 

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND FOR LEAVE TO FILE SEPARATE STATEMENTS 

Case No. 05-2649 

Stevens & 

O’Connell LLP

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 

 BY HAND DELIVERY. I placed a true copy thereof in an envelope addressed to each of 

the person(s) named above and by then sealing said envelope(s) and giving the same to a 

messenger for personal delivery. 

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

United States of America that the above is true and correct. 

Dated: September 20, 2007 _____/s/ DANIELLE Y. POWERS_________ 

 DANIELLE Y. POWERS 

 

Case 2:05-cv-02649-GEB-EFB Document 139 Filed 09/24/07 Page 7 of 7