Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02156/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02156-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
City of Sacramento
Defendant
Marc Lee
Defendant
Fred Sharp
Plaintiff
Robert Sharp
Plaintiff
Sharp Inspection Group, Inc.
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1

STIPULATION RE: FILING OF THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

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

THORNTON 

DAVIDSON, P.C.

2520 W. Shaw Lane,

Ste. 101-C

Fresno, CA 93711

Thornton Davidson #166487

THORNTON DAVIDSON, P.C.

2025 West Shaw Ln., Ste. 101-C

Fresno, CA 93711

Tel.: (559) 476-5066

Fax.: (559) 421-0368

Email: thornton@thorntondavidsonlaw.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs SHARP INSPECTION GROUP, INC.,

ROBERT SHARP, and FRED SHARP

UNITED STATES DISTICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (SACRAMENTO)

s

SHARP INSPECTION GROUP, INC.,

ROBERT SHARP, and FRED SHARP

 Plaintiffs,

v.

CITY OF SACRAMENTO, a Public Entity

and MARC LEE, an individual, 

 Defendants.

Case No.: 2:19-cv-02156-MCE-KJN

STIPULATION RE: EXTENSION

OF PLAINTIFF’S TIME TO FILE 

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT; 

ORDER THEREON

 

IT IS HEREBY stipulated by and between Plaintiffs, SHARP INSPECTION GROUP et al. 

(“Plaintiffs”), by and through their attorneys of record, Thornton Davidson, Thornton Davidson, 

P.C., and Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO et al. ( “Defendants”), by and through their 

attorney of record, Melissa D. Bickel, Senior Deputy City Attorney, Sacramento City Attorney’s 

Office, that:

1. Plaintiffs filed their Complaint for Breach of Contract, etc., on October 25, 2019, 

which was served on Defendants.

Case 2:19-cv-02156-MCE-KJN Document 13 Filed 03/23/20 Page 1 of 3
2

STIPULATION RE: FILING OF THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

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

THORNTON 

DAVIDSON, P.C.

2520 W. Shaw Lane,

Ste. 101-C

Fresno, CA 93711

2. Prior to Defendants’ filing of responsive pleadings, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended 

Complaint on October 29, 2019, which was also served on Defendants.

3. In response to Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint, Defendants filed a Motion to 

Dismiss pursuant to FRCP Rule 12(b)(6) and (7), which was scheduled for hearing on January 23, 

2020. One of the objections raised on Defendants’ Motion was that Psomas, Inc. (“Psomas”), the 

Prime Contractor under which Plaintiffs worked, was an indispensable party to the litigation. 

Plaintiffs contended that Psomas had not been sued because Plaintiffs were completing contractual 

mediation with Psomas which was required by their contract; Plaintiffs additionally maintained that 

they were required to omit Psomas from their initial Complaint and First Amended Complaint 

because of the deadline by which to sue Defendants herein.

4. On January 2, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint, also served on 

Defendants.

5. On January 22, 2020, the parties entered into Stipulation permitting Plaintiff to file a 

Third Amended Complaint which would include Psomas as a defendant. The Stipulation further 

required the Plaintiff to file their Third Amended Complaint within 10 days of the Court’s Order on 

the Stipulation, which was entered on February 12, 2020. Plaintiffs have yet to file their Third 

Amended Complaint.

6. Plaintiffs and Psomas are presently involved in further mediation stemming from 

their January 14, 2020, mediation. Accordingly, in order to determine whether Plaintiffs’ claims 

against Psomas can be resolved, which would necessarily include those against Defendants herein, 

the parties agree that Plaintiffs’ deadline to file a Third Amended Complaint is extended to June 16, 

2020.

7. In the event Plaintiffs and Psomas are not able to settle the case, inclusive of 

Defendants, Defendants retain the right to refile their Motion to Dismiss following service of 

Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint.

8. Any time periods affecting Plaintiffs or Defendants will be tolled from the entering 

of this Stipulation and June 16, 2020, so that neither party is prejudiced by the stipulated extension.

Case 2:19-cv-02156-MCE-KJN Document 13 Filed 03/23/20 Page 2 of 3
3

STIPULATION RE: FILING OF THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

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

THORNTON 

DAVIDSON, P.C.

2520 W. Shaw Lane, 

Ste. 101-C 

Fresno, CA 93711

DATED: March 16, 2020 THORNTON DAVIDSON, P.C.

/s/ ___ 

Thornton Davidson 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs FRED SHARP et al.

DATED: March 16, 2020 SUSANA ALCALA WOOD, City Attorney

_____________/s/___________________ 

MELISSA D. BICKEL, Senior Deputy

City Attorney for Defendants CITY OF 

SACRAMENTO, a Public Entity and 

MARC LEE, an individual 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 23, 2020

Case 2:19-cv-02156-MCE-KJN Document 13 Filed 03/23/20 Page 3 of 3