Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02556/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02556-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
City of Rio Vista
Counter Defendant
ECO Resources, Inc.
Counter Claimant
Steven E. Richardson
Counter Claimant

Document Text:

1 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

TO CONTINUE HEARINGS ON MOTION TO DISMISS ETC. 

745966.1

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

G. CHRISTIAN ROUX (State Bar No. 102272) 

KURT OSENBAUGH (State Bar No. 106132) 

GRACE J. CHANG (State Bar No. 218513) 

WESTON, BENSHOOF, ROCHEFORT, 

 RUBALCAVA & MacCUISH LLP

333 South Hope Street 

Sixteenth Floor 

Los Angeles, California 90071 

Telephone: (213) 576-1000 

Facsimile: (213) 576-1100 

Attorneys for Defendants 

E-Mail: 

croux@wbcounsel.com

kosenbaugh@wbcounsel.com

gchang@wbcounsel.com

Attorneys for Defendants and 

Counter-claimant 

ECO RESOURCES, INC. and 

STEVEN E. RICHARDSON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CITY OF RIO VISTA, a California 

municipality, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

ECO RESOURCES, INC.; a Texas 

corporation; STEVEN E. RICHARDSON, 

an individual, 

 Defendants. 

ECO RESOURCES, INC., a Texas 

corporation, 

 Counter-claimant, 

v. 

CITY OF RIO VISTA, a California 

municipality, 

 Counter-defendant. 

Case No.: 05 CV -2556 GEB DAD 

Honorable Garland E. Burrell, Jr. 

Courtroom 10 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER TO CONTINUE HEARINGS

ON ECO’S MOTION TO DISMISS 

AND THE CITY OF RIO VISTA’S 

MOTION TO REMAND 

Date: February 13, 2006 

Time: 9:00 a.m. 

Location: Courtroom 10 

The Honorable Gerald E. Burrell, Jr. 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:05-cv-02556-GEB -DAD Document 23 Filed 01/24/06 Page 1 of 7
2 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

TO CONTINUE HEARINGS ON MOTION TO DISMISS ETC. 

745966.1

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

WHEREAS, this case was initiated after Cross-Complainant, ECO 

Resources, Inc.(hereinafter “ECO”) filed a Notice of Removal of the case entitled City 

of Rio Vista v. ECO Resources, Inc.; Steven E. Richardson et al. (Solano County 

Court Case No. FCS 026963) which had been filed in the Solano County Superior 

Court; 

WHEREAS, currently with the filing of the Notice of Removal, ECO 

filed a Counterclaim against the City of Rio Vista in this case and a Motion to Dismiss 

All Claims Against Steven E. Richardson and in the City’s Fraud Claim set forth in 

the City of Rio Vista’s Complaint; 

WHEREAS, at the time of the filing of ECO’s Motion to Dismiss, the 

Court set a hearing date of January 30, 2006 for said Motion; 

WHEREAS, on or about January 5, 2006, the City of Rio Vista filed its 

Motion for Remand of the case to the State Court and set the hearing on said Motion 

for January 30, 2005, the same day as ECO’s Motion to Dismiss; 

WHEREAS, in addition to filing its Motion to Remand, the City of Rio 

Vista filed a separate Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike ECO’s Counterclaim 

and set the hearing on said Motions for February 13, 2006; 

WHEREAS, in order to save time and expense and in the interest of 

judicial economy, ECO and the City of Rio Vista have agreed to continue the hearings 

on ECO’s Motion to Dismiss and the City of Rio Vista’s Motion to Remand to 

February 13, 2006, at 9:00 a.m. so that said Motions may be heard at the same time as 

the City of Rio Vista’s Motion to Dismiss/ Motion to Strike. 

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the Parties 

hereto through their respective undersigned legal counsel that: 

1. The hearing on ECO Resources, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss shall be 

continued from January 30, 2006 to February 13, 2006 at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 10. 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:05-cv-02556-GEB -DAD Document 23 Filed 01/24/06 Page 2 of 7
3 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

TO CONTINUE HEARINGS ON MOTION TO DISMISS ETC. 

745966.1

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. The hearing on the City of Rio Vista’s Motion To Remand shall be 

continued from January 30, 2006 to February 13, 2006 at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 10. 

3. The deadlines for filing Opposition and Reply Papers shall be 

consistent with the requirements of Rule 78-230 of the Local Rules of the Eastern 

District of California. 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:05-cv-02556-GEB -DAD Document 23 Filed 01/24/06 Page 3 of 7
4 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

TO CONTINUE HEARINGS ON MOTION TO DISMISS ETC. 

745966.1

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. The City of Rio Vista’s appearance in the removed case and/or in 

the action as to ECO’s Counterclaim by and through this stipulation and joint request 

for an order shall not be deemed, asserted or construed as a general appearance as to 

ECO’s Counterclaim, shall not be deemed, asserted or construed as a consent to the 

jurisdiction of the federal court over the case, and shall not be deemed, asserted or 

construed as a waiver of the City’s objections to such jurisdiction and/or to any aspect 

of ECO’s Counterclaim. 

DATED: January __, 2006 G. CHRISTIAN ROUX 

KURT OSENBAUGH 

GRACE J. CHANG 

WESTON, BENSHOOF, ROCHEFORT, 

 RUBALCAVA & MacCUISH LLP 

G. Christian Roux 

Attorneys for Defendants and Counter-claimant 

ECO RESOURCES, INC. and STEVEN E. 

RICHARDSON 

DATED: January __, 2006 ZACHARY SMITH 

MICHAEL SCOTT WILCOX 

McDONOUGH, HOLLAND & ALLEN, PC 

____________________________________________ 

 Zachary Smith 

Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counter-defendant 

City of Rio Vista 

IT IS HEREBY SO ORERED: 

DATED: January 23, 2006 

 /s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr. 

 GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR. 

 United States District Judge 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:05-cv-02556-GEB -DAD Document 23 Filed 01/24/06 Page 4 of 7
5 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

TO CONTINUE HEARINGS ON MOTION TO DISMISS ETC. 

745966.1

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

 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:05-cv-02556-GEB -DAD Document 23 Filed 01/24/06 Page 5 of 7
745966.1

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

PROOF OF SERVICE 

I, Marlene D. Yokley, declare: 

I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am 

over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action. My business address is 

Weston, Benshoof, Rochefort, Rubalcava & MacCuish LLP, 333 South Hope Street, 

Sixteenth Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90071. I am over the age of eighteen years and not 

a party to the action in which this service is made. 

On January 13, 2006, I served the document(s) described as 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE HEARINGS, on 

the interested parties in this action by enclosing the document(s) in a sealed envelope 

addressed as follows: 

Please see attached service list 

ý BY MAIL: I am "readily familiar" with this firm's practice for the collection 

and the processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal 

Service. In the ordinary course of business, the correspondence would be 

deposited with the United States Postal Service at 333 South Hope Street, Los 

Angeles, California 90071 with postage thereon fully prepaid the same day on 

which the correspondence was placed for collection and mailing at the firm. 

Following ordinary business practices, I placed for collection and mailing with 

the United States Postal Service such envelope at Weston, Benshoof, Rochefort, 

Rubalcava & MacCuish LLP, 333 South Hope Street, Los Angeles, California 

90071. 

 ̈ BY FEDERAL EXPRESS  ̈ UPS NEXT DAY AIR  ̈ OVERNIGHT 

DELIVERY: I deposited such envelope in a facility regularly maintained by  ̈

FEDERAL EXPRESS  ̈ UPS  ̈ Overnight Delivery [specify name of 

service: ] with delivery fees fully provided for or delivered the envelope to a 

courier or driver of  ̈ FEDERAL EXPRESS  ̈ UPS  ̈ OVERNIGHT 

DELIVERY [specify name of service:] authorized to receive documents at 

Weston, Benshoof, Rochefort, Rubalcava & MacCuish LLP, 333 South Hope 

Street, Los Angeles, California 90071 with delivery fees fully provided for. 

 ̈ BY FACSIMILE: I telecopied a copy of said document(s) to the following 

addressee(s) at the following number(s) in accordance with the written 

confirmation of counsel in this action. 

 ̈ [State] I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of 

California that the above is true and correct. 

ý [Federal] I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and 

correct. 

Executed on January 13, 2006, at Los Angeles, California. 

Marlene D. Yokley 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:05-cv-02556-GEB -DAD Document 23 Filed 01/24/06 Page 6 of 7
745966.1

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

CITY OF RIO VISTA v. ECO RESOURCES, INC., et al. 

U.S.D.C., EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CASE NO. CV-2556 GEB DAD 

SERVICE LIST 

Zachary Smith, Esq. 

Michael Scott Wilcox, Esq. 

McDonough Holland and Allen PC 

555 Capitol Mall 

9

th Floor 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Counsel for Plaintiff and Counterdefendant 

CITY OF RIO VISTA 

Telephone: (916) 444-3900 

Fax: (916) 444-3249 

Email: mwilcox@mhalaw.com

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:05-cv-02556-GEB -DAD Document 23 Filed 01/24/06 Page 7 of 7