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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ASPIC ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION 

COMPANY, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

ECC CENTCOM CONSTRUCTORS LLC, ET 

IN SUPPORT FOR THE COURT AL., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 17-cv-00224-YGR 

ORDER DENYING STIPULATION EXTENDING 

TIME FOR DEFENDANTS TO FILE RESPONSE 

AND SETTING HEARING

Re: Dkt. No. 16 

The Court is in receipt of the Parties’ Joint Stipulation Extending Time for Defendants to 

File Response and Setting Hearing (“Stipulation”). (Dkt. No. 16). While the Court is not opposed 

to the proposed briefing schedule, it does not believe that it can agree with paragraph 7 that the 

Court shall “correct, modify or vacate the judgment that was entered in the Superior Court to 

conform with the decision of this Court.” (Dkt. No. 16 at 3.) See, e.g., Carvalho v. Equifax Info. 

Servs., LLC, 629 F.3d 876, 887 (9th Cir. 2010) (“After removal, the federal court takes the case up 

where the State court left it off . . . . Consequently, an order entered by a state court should be 

treated as though it had been validly rendered in the federal proceeding.” (internal quotation marks 

and citations omitted)); Resolution Trust Corp. v. BVS Dev., Inc., 42 F.3d 1206, 1211-12 (9th Cir. 

1994) (“It is settled that a federal court must take a case as it finds it on removal, requiring a 

district court to treat a prior state judgment as though it had been validly rendered in a federal 

proceeding.” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)); Butner v. Neustadter, 324 F.2d 

783, 785-86 (9th Cir. 1963) (“The federal court takes the case as it finds it on removal and treats 

everything that occurred in the state court as if it had taken place in federal court.”) 

Here, despite the language of the Stipulation, it appears that the state court’s order entering 

Case 4:17-cv-00224-YGR Document 21 Filed 02/13/17 Page 1 of 2
2 

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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

judgment on the arbitration award stated that respondents/defendants responded. Then, they 

attempted to move to vacate the judgment in the state court by an ex parte motion, but the ex parte 

motion was denied because it needed to be filed as a noticed motion. Rather than file a noticed 

motion, respondents/defendants removed. 

Given the current procedural posture of this action, the parties’ Stipulation is DENIED. By 

February 24, 2017, the parties must file an updated stipulation. The Court SETS a compliance 

hearing for Friday, March 3, 2017 at 9:01 a.m. regarding submission of the updated stipulation. 

If compliance is complete, the compliance hearing may be vacated and the parties need not appear. 

Dated: February 13, 2017 

______________________________________ 

 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Case 4:17-cv-00224-YGR Document 21 Filed 02/13/17 Page 2 of 2