Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00526/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00526-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 385
Nature of Suit: Property Damage - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1333 Admiralty

---

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 TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO INITIAL COMPLAINT

E:\cases\Helmuts Marine Service\Dale v. Helmut's Marine\STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME.doc

Page -1-

Dennis E. Simmons, #142310

THE SIMMONS FIRM

30 Professional Center Pkwy, Ste. A

San Rafael, CA 94903

Telephone: 415.479.1704

Facsimile: 415.479-1708

Attorney for Defendant

HELMUT’S MARINE SERVICE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH DALE, 

Plaintiff,

v.

KEEFE KAPLAN MARITIME, INC.,

VOLVO PENTA OF THE AMERICAS,

INC., HC COMPOSITES LLC, HCGB

COMPOSITES, LLC; WORLD CLASS

CATAMARANS, WORLD CAT;

HELMUT’S MARINE SERVICE,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. CV 10-526 MEJ

STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO

RESPOND TO INITIAL COMPLAINT

BY NOT MORE THAN 30 DAYS

(L.R. 6-1(a))

Complaint Served:

March 15, 2010

Current Response Date:

April 5, 2010

New Response Date:

April 19, 2010

Defendant Helmut’s Marine Service, by and through its attorneys of record,

and Joseph Dale (“Plaintiff”), by and through his attorneys of record, hereby

stipulate and agree as follows: 

WHEREAS, Plaintiff’s Initial Complaint was filed on February 5, 2010, and

served on March 15, 2010;

WHEREAS, Defendant Helmut’s Marine Service’s response to Plaintiff’s

Initial Complaint is currently due on April 5, 2010; 

WHEREAS, Defendant Helmut’s Marine Service has not requested or

obtained any prior extensions to respond to the Initial Complaint;

Case 3:10-cv-00526-MEJ Document 17 Filed 04/06/10 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

STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO INITIAL COMPLAINT

E:\cases\Helmuts Marine Service\Dale v. Helmut's Marine\STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME.doc

Page -2-

WHEREAS, pursuant to Local Rule 6-1(a), counsel for Defendant Helmut’s

Marine Service and counsel for Plaintiff have agreed to extend the period of time in

which Defendant may answer or otherwise plead in response to Plaintiff’s Initial

Complaint by fourteen (14) days. 

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED BY AND BETWEEN COUNSEL AS

FOLLOWS: 

Defendant Helmut’s Marine Service shall have up to and including April 19,

2010 within which to answer or otherwise plead in response to Plaintiff’s Initial

Complaint. 

IT IS SO STIPULATED. 

DATED: April 5, 2010 THE SIMMONS FIRM

By: /s/ Dennis E. Simmons 

Dennis E. Simmons

Attorneys for Defendant

HELMUT’S MARINE SERVICE

DATED: April 5, 2010 BIRNBERG & ASSOCIATES

By: /s/ Corey A. Birnberg 

Corey A. Birnberg

Attorneys for Plaintiff

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: _________________, 2010 ____________________________________

The Hon. Maria-Elena James

United States Magistrate Judge

Northern District of California

April 6

Case 3:10-cv-00526-MEJ Document 17 Filed 04/06/10 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

STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO INITIAL COMPLAINT

E:\cases\Helmuts Marine Service\Dale v. Helmut's Marine\STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME.doc

Page -3-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT/Northern District of California

CASE NAME: Dale v. Keefe Kaplan Maritime, Inc., et al.

CASE NUMBER: CV 10-526 MEJ

PROOF OF SERVICE BY U.S. MAIL

On April 5, 2010, I served via United States mail a copy of the following

document: STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO INITIAL

COMPLAINT BY NOT MORE THAN 30 DAYS in the within action.

At the time of service, (1) my business address was 30 Professional Center

Parkway, Ste. A, San Rafael, California 94903; (2) I was employed in the County

of Marin, California; (3) I was over the age of 18 and not a party to the within

action; (4) I was familiar with my business' practice for collection and processing of

correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service; (5) I placed the

document in envelopes addressed as follows: 

Cory A. Birnberg, Esq.

Birnberg & Associates

1083 Mission Street, 3 Floor

rd

San Francisco, CA 94103

Attorney for Plaintiff Dale

George G. Robb, Esq.

Gibson Robb & Lindh LLP

100 First Street, 27 Floor

th

San Francisco, CA 94105

Attorneys for HC Composites LLC, et al.

Brian A. Kelly, Esq.

Duane Morris LLP

One Market, Spear Tower

Suite 2000

San Francisco, 94105-1104

Attorney for Volvo Penta

Joshua A. Southwick, Esq.

Gibson, Robb & Lindh

100 First Street, 27 Floor

th

San Francisco, CA 94105

and, (6) the envelopes were sealed and placed for collection and mailing in 

accordance with ordinary business practices. I declare under penalty of perjury 

under the laws of the United States of American that all of the foregoing 

statements are true and correct and, if called upon, would testify competently 

thereto. Executed on April 5, 2010, in San Rafael, California. 

/s/ Susan Ardery

 Susan Ardery

Case 3:10-cv-00526-MEJ Document 17 Filed 04/06/10 Page 3 of 3