Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01310/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01310-8/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Beco Dairy Automation, Inc.
Counter Defendant
Agnes Borchert
Counter Defendant
Robert C. Borchert
Counter Defendant
Stan Brown
Counter Claimant
Rafael Antonio Fematt
Counter Defendant
Global Tech Systems, Inc.
Counter Claimant
Madison One Holdings, LLC
Counter Defendant

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

Matthew W. Quall, #183759

mquall@quallcardot.com

Quall Cardot LLP

205 East River Park Circle, Suite 110

Fresno, CA 93720

Telephone: (559) 418-0333

Facsimile: (559) 418-0330

Attorneys for Defendants AGNES BORCHERT, ROBERT C. BORCHERT,

RAFAEL ANTONIO FEMATT, and MADISON ONE HOLDINGS LLC

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BECO DAIRY AUTOMATION, INC., 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

GLOBAL TECH SYSTEMS, INC., and DOES 1 

to 50,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:12-CV-01310

STIPULATION AND ORDER 

TO EXTEND THE DEADLINE TO FILE 

A RESPONSIVE PLEADING 

[L.R. 144(a)]

GLOBAL TECH SYSTEMS, INC., a New 

Mexico corporation,

 Counter-Claimant, 

 v. 

BECO DAIRY AUTOMATION, INC., a 

California corporation, and STAN BROWN, an 

individual,

Counter-Defendants. 

STAN BROWN, individually and as a 

shareholder of GLOBAL TECH SYSTEMS, 

INC.,

 Cross-Complainant/Counter-Claimant, 

 v. 

GLOBAL TECH SYSTEMS, INC., ROBERT C. 

BORCHERT, AGNES BORCHERT, RAFAEL 

ANTONIO FEMATT, and MADISON ONE 

HOLDINGS, LLC,

Cross-Defendants/ Counter-Defendants

Case 1:12-cv-01310-LJO-SKO Document 125 Filed 12/23/15 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

TO THE HONORABLE SANDRA M. SNYDER, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE:

Cross-Defendants ROBERT C. BORCHERT, AGNES BORCHERT, RAFAEL 

ANTONIO FEMATT, and MADISON ONE HOLDINGS, LLC (collectively, 

“Cross-Defendants”), and Cross-Complainant, STAN BROWN, individually and as a shareholder 

of GLOBAL TECH SYSTEMS, INC., (“Cross-Complainant”), by and through their respective 

counsel, hereby agree and stipulate, subject to approval of the Court, to extend the deadline for 

filing a responsive pleading to Stan Brown’s Cross-Complaint from December 28, 2015, up to 

January 25, 2016, in light of the following: 

RECITALS

WHEREAS, Cross-Complainant filed a Cross-Complaint for Damages (the 

“Cross-Complaint”) on November 6, 2015, in United Stated District Court, Eastern District of 

California, Case No. 1:12-cv-01310. 

WHEREAS, a Summons in a Civil Case was issued in the above-referenced action on 

November 6, 2015 (the “Summons”). 

WHEREAS, Cross-Defendants were served with a copy of the Cross-Complaint and 

Summons at various times between November 10, 2015 and November 16, 2015.

WHEREAS, Cross-Defendants retained counsel on November 30, 2015;

WHEREAS, Cross-Defendants were required to file a responsive pleading between

December 1, 2015 and December 7, 2015. 

WHEREAS, counsel for Cross-Complainant and counsel for Cross-Defendants agreed that 

in light of the recent engagement of counsel, coupled with counsel having just finished a 

four-week trial in Merced County and an impending week-long arbitration, Cross-Complainant 

would extend the time for Cross-Defendants to file a responsive pleading by less than twenty eight

(28) days, thereby extending that time for Cross-Defendants to file a responsive pleading to on or 

before December 28, 2015. 

WHEREAS, Cross-Defendants’ counsel has been lead counsel on a four-week trial in 

Merced County and a one-week arbitration in Fresno during the months of November and 

December. Phase I of the arbitration concluded on Monday, December 15, 2015. With closing

Case 1:12-cv-01310-LJO-SKO Document 125 Filed 12/23/15 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

briefs due the week of December 22nd for the trial in Merced, coupled with the upcoming holidays,

Cross-Defendants’ counsel will be not be able to meaningfully come up to speed on the matter in 

time to draft responsive pleadings by the previously extended filing deadline.

WHEREAS, with the Court’s approval, counsel for Cross-Complainant and counsel for 

Cross-Defendants have agreed to further extend the time for Cross-Defendants to file a responsive 

pleading by an additional twenty eight (28) days, thereby extending the time for Cross-Defendants 

to file a responsive pleading to on or before January 25, 2016. 

STIPULATION

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between Cross-Complainant and 

Cross-Defendants as follows: 

1. The time by which Cross-Defendants have to file a responsive pleading is extended

to on or before January 25, 2016. 

IT IS SO STIPULATED. 

Dated: December 22, 2015 By: ___/s/ Matthew W. Quall_________ 

Matthew W. Quall

Attorneys for Cross-Defendants 

AGNES BORCHERT, ROBERT C. 

BORCHERT, RAFAEL ANTONIO 

FEMATT, and MADISON 

ONE HOLDINGS LLC

Dated: December 22, 2015 By: ___/s/ _Howard A. Sagaser _____________

Howard A. Sagaser

Attorneys for Cross-Complainant STAN 

BROWN, individually and as a shareholder 

of GLOBAL TECH SYSTEMS, 

Case 1:12-cv-01310-LJO-SKO Document 125 Filed 12/23/15 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

ORDER

Pursuant to stipulation and good cause having been show, IT IS SO ORDERED:

1. The time for Cross- Defendants to file an Amended Answer shall be extended to on 

or before January 25, 2016.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 23, 2015 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01310-LJO-SKO Document 125 Filed 12/23/15 Page 4 of 4