Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02126/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02126-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Budget Property Management, Inc.
Defendant
Cal Investors, Inc.
Defendant
California Investor
Defendant
California Investors
Defendant
Michele Giguiere
Defendant
William T. Martin
Defendant
Wesley Riley
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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 - 

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

SECOND STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME FOR DEFENDANTS 

WILLIAM T. MARTIN, CALIFORNIA INVESTOR, CALIFORNIA INVESTORS, AND BUDGET PROPERTY 

MANAGEMENT, INC., TO RESPOND TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 

William A. Muñoz - 191649 

Robert W. Lucas - 143920 

MURPHY, PEARSON, BRADLEY & FEENEY 

701 University Avenue, Suite 150 

Sacramento, CA 95825 

Telephone: (916) 565-0300 

Facsimile: (916) 565-1636 

Attorneys for Defendants 

WILLIAM T. MARTIN, CALIFORNIA INVESTOR, CALIFORNIA INVESTORS and 

BUDGET PROPERTY MANAGEMENT INC. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SACRAMENTO 

 

WESLEY RILEY, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

MICHELE GIGUIERE, BUDGET PROPERTY 

MANAGEMENT, INC., CAL INVESTORS, INC., 

WILLIAM T. MARTIN, CALIFORNIA 

INVESTOR and CALIFORNIA INVESTORS, 

Defendants. 

Case No.: CV 021266-LKK-KJM 

SECOND STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR 

AN EXTENSION OF TIME FOR 

DEFENDANTS WILLIAM T. MARTIN, 

CALIFORNIA INVESTOR, CALIFORNIA 

INVESTORS, AND BUDGET PROPERTY 

MANAGEMENT, INC., TO RESPOND TO 

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 

The parties, by and through their respective counsel, do hereby agree and stipulate as follows: 

WHEREAS, Defendants William T. Martin, California Investor, California Investors, and 

Budget Property Management, Inc., were ostensibly served with the First Amended Complaint on or 

about March 2, 2007, and have not formally appeared in the present action; 

WHEREAS, Defendants William T. Martin, California Investor, California Investors, and 

Budget Property Management, Inc., assuming service is proper, are to respond to the First Amended 

Complaint on or before March 22, 2007; 

WHEREAS, Defendants William T. Martin, California Investor, California Investors, and 

Budget Property Management, Inc., contend that they are not debt collectors for purposes of the Fair 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:06-cv-02126-LKK -KJM Document 33 Filed 03/30/07 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

- 2 - 

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

SECOND STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME FOR DEFENDANTS 

WILLIAM T. MARTIN, CALIFORNIA INVESTOR, CALIFORNIA INVESTORS, AND BUDGET PROPERTY 

MANAGEMENT, INC., TO RESPOND TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 

Debt Collection Practices Act. Defendants’ counsel has communicated this to Plaintiff’s counsel and 

provided case authority holding the same for Plaintiff’s counsel to review. 

WHEREAS, Plaintiff’s counsel recently started his own firm and has not had the opportunity to 

review the case authority provided by Defendants’ counsel, an extension of time of one week for 

Defendants to respond to the First Amended Complaint is appropriate in order to potentially minimize 

the attorney’s fees and costs that would otherwise be incurred in preparing a responsive pleading. 

WHEREAS, the parties stipulated to one previous extension of time until March 29, 2007 for 

Defendants to file their responsive pleading to the First Amended Complaint with the hope that 

Plaintiff’s counsel would have the opportunity to review the pertinent case law provided by counsel. 

However, Plaintiff’s counsel has been unable to do so and cannot do so by the March 29, 2007 deadline 

given other filings that he must prepare by March 29, 2007. 

WHEREAS, the parties will not seek any further extensions of time for Defendants to file a 

responsive pleading to the First Amended Complaint and should have any responsive pleading or 

motion to dismiss on file on or before April 6, 2007. 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:06-cv-02126-LKK -KJM Document 33 Filed 03/30/07 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

- 3 - 

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

SECOND STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME FOR DEFENDANTS 

WILLIAM T. MARTIN, CALIFORNIA INVESTOR, CALIFORNIA INVESTORS, AND BUDGET PROPERTY 

MANAGEMENT, INC., TO RESPOND TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 

The parties hereby STIPULATE and AGREE: 

Defendants William T. Martin, California Investor, California Investors, and Budget Property 

Management Inc.’s responsive pleading to the First Amended Complaint is due on or before April 6, 

2007. 

Dated: March 29, 2007 

MURPHY, PEARSON, BRADLEY & FEENEY 

By /s/ 

William A. Munoz 

Attorneys for Defendants 

WILLIAM T. MARTIN, CALIFORNIA 

INVESTORS, INC., CALIFORNIA INVESTORS 

and BUDGET PROPERTY MANAGEMENT INC. 

Dated: March 29, 2007 

MURPHY, CAMPBELL, GUTHRIE & ALLISTON 

By /s/ 

Mark A. Campbell 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

WESLEY RILEY 

 

Dated: March 29, 2007 

 

By /s/ 

Michele L. Giguiere 

Pro Se Defendant 

WAM.10364352.doc 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:06-cv-02126-LKK -KJM Document 33 Filed 03/30/07 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

- 4 - 

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

SECOND STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME FOR DEFENDANTS 

WILLIAM T. MARTIN, CALIFORNIA INVESTOR, CALIFORNIA INVESTORS, AND BUDGET PROPERTY 

MANAGEMENT, INC., TO RESPOND TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 

ORDER

Having considered the Stipulation of the parties and for good cause appearing, Defendants 

William T. Martin, California Investor, California Investors, and Budget Management property, Inc.’s 

responsive pleading shall be due on or before April 6, 2007. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: March 29, 2007. 

 

 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:06-cv-02126-LKK -KJM Document 33 Filed 03/30/07 Page 4 of 4