D

O

W

N

E

Y

B

R

A

N

D

L

L

P

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 

STIP. AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO FILE AMENDED ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 

DOWNEY BRAND LLP 

MICHAEL J. THOMAS (Bar No. 172326) 

RALPH R. NEVIS (Bar No. 202730) 

555 Capitol Mall, Tenth Floor 

Sacramento, CA 95814-4686 

Telephone: (916) 444-1000 

Facsimile: (916) 444-2100 

Attorneys for Defendants 

Central Striping Service, Inc., 

James Lesniewski and Susan Lesniewski 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

RAINLINE CORPORATION, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CENTRAL STRIPING SERVICE, INC., 

JAMES LESNIEWSKI, SUSAN 

LESNIEWSKI, 

Defendants. 

Case No. CIV.S-04-2700 GEB DAD 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER TO FILE AMENDED ANSWER 

TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 

WHEREAS, defendant Central Striping Service, Inc.'s ("Central Striping") previous 

counsel filed an Answer to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, and whereas Central Striping, 

through its current counsel of record, now seeks to file an Amended Answer to Plaintiff's First 

Amended Complaint, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A; 

WHEREAS, defendant Central Striping contends that justice requires that leave to amend 

be granted in order to allow Central Striping to conform its Answer to the Answer filed on behalf 

of the individual defendants which contains certain allegations/affirmative defenses which were 

not included in the original Central Striping Answer filed by prior counsel; 

WHEREAS, the Court's July 1, 2005, Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order, provides that 

Central Striping shall have until July 11, 2005, to seek leave under Rule 15 of the Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure to file an Amended Answer; 

Case 2:04-cv-02700-GEB-DAD Document 36 Filed 07/11/05 Page 1 of 2
D

O

W

N

E

Y

B

R

A

N

D

L

L

P

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 

STIP. AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO FILE AMENDED ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 

WHEREAS, RAINLINE CORPORATION ("RainLine") has agreed to Central Striping's 

request for a stipulation that it be allowed to file the attached Amended Answer subject to the 

following condition: By stipulating to the filing of the amended answer, Plaintiff does not 

concede the merit of the allegations or defenses set forth therein and indeed disputes them. 

Plaintiff reserves the right to use defendant Central Striping’s admissions in its original answer 

against it in later proceedings, Huey v. Honeywell, Inc., 82 F.3d 327 (9th Cir. 1996), to and 

including as evidence that Defendants’ improperly inflated the costs of this litigation in any 

subsequent motion for attorney’s fees; and, 

WHEREAS, in signing this stipulation, defendants do not concede that Plaintiff has the 

rights asserted in the preceding paragraph, although defendants do agree that Plaintiff is not 

waiving any rights in signing this stipulation; 

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between Plaintiff RainLine, and Defendant Central 

Striping, by and through their respective counsel, that Central Striping may file the Amended 

Answer to the First Amended Complaint attached hereto as Exhibit A. 

DATED: July 8, 2005 STEVENS & O'CONNELL LLP 

By: /s/ Todd M. Noonan (original signature retained by 

attorney) 

TODD M. NOONAN 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

 The RainLine Corporation 

DATED: July 8, 2005 DOWNEY BRAND LLP 

By: /s/ Michael J. Thomas 

MICHAEL J. THOMAS 

Attorney for Defendants 

Central Striping Service, Inc., James Lesniewski and 

Susan Lesniewski 

IT IS SO ORDERED: 

DATED: July 11, 2005 s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr. 

 GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR. 

 United States District Judge 

Case 2:04-cv-02700-GEB-DAD Document 36 Filed 07/11/05 Page 2 of 2