Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-03467/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-03467-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Administration Committee for the Valley Aggregate, Inc.
Defendant
Edward Clarke
Plaintiff
Lorraine Lindeman
Defendant
Michael Lindeman
Defendant
David Nickum
Defendant
Valley Aggregate Transport, Inc.
Defendant

Document Text:

T

rucker ö H

uss

A

Professional Corporation

100

Montgomery Street, 23

rd

Floor

San Francisco, California 94104

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 AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING HEARING ON MOTION FOR DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFF’S 

COMPLAINT, Case No. 2:09-CV-03467-JAM-DAD

1

#1073612 

R. Bradford Huss, No. 71303 

Robert F. Schwartz, No. 227327 

Virginia H. Perkins, No. 215832 

Michelle L. Schuller, No. 255787 

TRUCKER ö HUSS 

A Professional Corporation 

100 Montgomery Street, 23rd Floor 

San Francisco, California 94104 

Telephone: (415) 788-3111 

Facsimile: (415) 421-2017 

E-mail: bhuss@truckerhuss.com

 rschwartz@truckerhuss.com

 vperkins@truckerhuss.com

 mschuller@truckerhuss.com

Attorneys for Defendants David Nickum, 

Valley Aggregate Transport, Inc., and 

Administration Committee for the Valley 

Aggregate Transport, Inc., Employee Stock Ownership Plan 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SACRAMENTO DIVISION 

EDWARD CLARKE, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

MICHAEL LINDEMAN, LORRAINE 

LINDEMAN, DAVID NICKUM, VALLEY 

AGGREGATE TRANSPORT, INC., and 

ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE FOR 

THE VALLEY AGGREGATE, INC., 

EMPLOYEE STOCK OWNERSHIP PLAN, 

 Defendants. 

Case No. 2:09-CV-03467-JAM-DAD 

STIPULATION AND ORDER 

CONTINUING HEARING ON MOTION 

FOR DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFF’S 

COMPLAINT FILED BY DAVID 

NICKUM, VALLEY AGGREGATE 

TRANSPORT, INC., AND 

ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE FOR 

THE VALLEY AGGREGATE 

TRANSPORT, INC., EMPLOYEE 

STOCK OWNERSHIP PLAN 

Date: May 19, 2010 

Time: 9:30 a.m. 

Location: Courtroom 6 

Judge: Hon. John A. Mendez 

Defendants DAVID NICKUM, VALLEY AGGREGATE TRANSPORT, INC. and 

ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE FOR THE VALLEY AGGREGATE TRANSPORT, INC., 

EMPLOYEE STOCK OWNERSHIP PLAN (“Valley Aggregate Defendants”) and Plaintiff 

EDWARD CLARKE (“Plaintiff”) (together the “Parties”) hereby stipulate, by and through their 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:09-cv-03467-JAM-DAD Document 16 Filed 04/07/10 Page 1 of 3
T

rucker ö H

uss

A

Professional Corporation

100

Montgomery Street, 23

rd

Floor

San Francisco, California 94104

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 AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING HEARING ON MOTION FOR DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFF’S 

COMPLAINT, Case No. 2:09-CV-03467-JAM-DAD

2

#1073612 

respective counsel, to continue the hearing on the Valley Aggregate Defendants’ Motion for 

Dismissal of Plaintiff’s Complaint (“Motion to Dismiss”), currently scheduled for May 19, 2010 at 

9:30 a.m. Pursuant to this Stipulation, the Parties request an Order setting the date for hearing on 

the Motion to Dismiss as June 16, 2010 at 9:30 a.m. 

The Parties request this continuance for the following reasons: 

1. The Plaintiff has propounded two sets of Requests for Production of Documents to 

All Defendants (the “Requests”). The Valley Aggregate Defendants’ written responses and 

objections to those Requests are currently due, by agreement, on April 19, 2010. 

2. Virginia Perkins, the attorney at Trucker Huss in charge of preparing the written 

responses and objections to Plaintiff’s Requests and in charge of producing documents on behalf of 

the Valley Aggregate Defendants in response to those Requests, is scheduled for surgery on 

April 9, 2010 and will be out of the office for that surgery from April 8, 2010 through April 26, 

2010. The timing of this surgery was unanticipated. 

3. The Plaintiff and the Valley Aggregate Defendants have agreed to extend the 

deadline for the Valley Aggregate Defendants to respond to the Plaintiff’s Requests, however, the 

Plaintiff would like sufficient time after those responses are provided to prepare his Opposition to 

the Motion to Dismiss. 

4. In order to give the Plaintiff sufficient time to prepare his Opposition to the Motion 

to Dismiss after the production of documents pursuant to Plaintiff’s Requests, the Parties request a 

continuance of the hearing on the Motion to Dismiss to June 16, 2010 at 9:30 a.m. 

// 

// 

// 

// 

// 

// 

// 

// 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:09-cv-03467-JAM-DAD Document 16 Filed 04/07/10 Page 2 of 3
T

rucker ö H

uss

A

Professional Corporation

100

Montgomery Street, 23

rd

Floor

San Francisco, California 94104

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 AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING HEARING ON MOTION FOR DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFF’S 

COMPLAINT, Case No. 2:09-CV-03467-JAM-DAD

3

#1073612 

5. The Parties have not requested any prior Order extending time in this litigation. 

This extension will alter the current date for hearing on the Valley Aggregate Defendants’ Motion 

for Dismissal of Plaintiff’s Complaint from May 19, 2010 to June 16, 2010. 

DATED: April 6, 2010 

TRUCKER ö HUSS 

By: /s/R. Bradford Huss 

R. Bradford Huss 

Attorneys for Defendants 

David Nickum, Valley Aggregate Transport, Inc. 

and the Valley Aggregate Transport, Inc. 

Employee Stock Ownership Plan 

DATED: April 6, 2010 

LEWIS, FEINBERG, LEE, RENAKER & 

JACKSON, P.C.

By: /s/Daniel Feinberg (as authorized on 4/6/2010)

Daniel Feinberg 

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: April 6, 2010 

/s/ John A. Mendez____________

Honorable John A. Mendez 

United States District Court Judge 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:09-cv-03467-JAM-DAD Document 16 Filed 04/07/10 Page 3 of 3