Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00537/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00537-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SKANSKA USA BUILDING, INC., a )

Delaware corporation, )

) CIV. S-05-537 GEB GGH

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) 

) ORDER RE OBJECTIONS TO

ROGERS-QUINN CONSTRUCTION, INC., ) STATUS (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING)

a California corporation, ) ORDER

)

Defendant. )

)

ROGERS-QUINN CONSTRUCTION, INC., a )

California corporation, )

)

Counter-Claimant, )

)

v. )

)

SKANSKA USA BUILDING, INC., a )

Delaware corporation, )

)

Counter-Defendant. )

)

Plaintiff’s “Objection and Request for Clarification to

Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order” (“Objection”) is erroneously

premised on the notion that the parties unambiguously agreed that

Plaintiff could file an amendment to its Complaint. But the parties’

Joint Status Report (“JSR”) is vague on this point. Specifically,

Case 2:05-cv-00537-GEB-GGH Document 15 Filed 06/28/05 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

2

Rogers-Quinn Construction, Inc. (“R.Q.”), “agreed to stipulate to the

amendment of the complaint provided that the amendments conform to

prior communications Skanska has had with R.Q. concerning proposed

amendments to the complaint.” (JSR at 2.)

Therefore, Plaintiff’s objection is overruled.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 28, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge 

Case 2:05-cv-00537-GEB-GGH Document 15 Filed 06/28/05 Page 2 of 2