Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01101/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01101-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Camp Richardson Resort, Inc.
Plaintiff
Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company
Defendant

Document Text:

1

SECOND STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO 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

JAMES C. NIELSEN (111889)

 jnielsen@nielsenhaley.com

CHRISTINE B. CUSICK (280646)

 ccusick@nielsenhaley.com

NIELSEN, HALEY & ABBOTT LLP

100 Smith Ranch Road, Suite 350

San Rafael, California 94903

Telephone: (415) 693-0900

Facsimile: (415) 693-9674

Attorneys for Defendant,

PHILADELPHIA INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CAMP RICHARDSON RESORT, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

PHILADELPHIA INDEMNITY 

INSURANCE COMPANY; 

Defendant.

Civil Action No.: 2:15-CV-01101-TLNAC

SECOND STIPULATION TO EXTEND 

TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT

(L.R. 144) AND ORDER

HONORABLE 

TROY L. NUNLEY

TO THE CLERK OF THE ABOVE-ENTITLED COURT:

On June 16, 2015, the parties filed a stipulation pursuant to Eastern District Local 

Rule 144 (Fed. Rules Civ. Proc., rule 6), stating that Defendant Philadelphia Indemnity 

Insurance Company may have up to and including July 7, 2015, to file an answer or 

otherwise respond to the complaint. That was the first extension of time in this case and 

extended the time to file by 20 days.

Case 2:15-cv-01101-TLN-AC Document 8 Filed 07/13/15 Page 1 of 2
2

SECOND STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO 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

The parties now seek the Court’s approval to stipulate that Philadelphia may have up 

to and including July 17, 2015, to file an answer or otherwise respond to the complaint. 

This is the second extension of time in this case.

Philadelphia seeks this extension because it intends to file a motion under Rule 

12b(6) and the complexity of the issues is such that defense counsel has not been able to 

complete its motion under the original two-week extension and will need another ten days 

to do so. The additional time is additionally justified because the two defense attorneys 

working on this matter have encountered several short-term legal emergencies on other 

engagements that have prevented them from devoting full time to the preparing of their 

initial motion here and their time has been further reduced due to a partner in their firm 

taking sabbatical, creating a crush of work. The Plaintiff does not object to Philadelphia’s 

request for a second extension.

Dated: July 6, 2015 BANKS & WATSON

 By: /s/

ROBERTA LINDSEY SCOTT

Attorneys for Plaintiff

CAMP RICHARDSON RESORT, INC.

Dated: July 6, 2015 NIELSEN, HALEY & ABBOTT LLP

 By: /s/

CHRISTINE B. CUSICK

Attorneys for Defendant

PHILADELPHIA INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY

In accordance with the foregoing stipulation IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 8, 2015

Case 2:15-cv-01101-TLN-AC Document 8 Filed 07/13/15 Page 2 of 2