GLOBAL AEROSPACE (NORTH AMERICA), INC. v. SKYVIEW AVIATION LLC

Case No. 2:17-CV-00147-JAM-KJN.

GLOBAL AEROSPACE (NORTH AMERICA), INC., a Delaware Corporation; CIRRUS DESIGN CORPORATION dba CIRRUS AIRCRAFT, a Minnesota Corporation, Plaintiffs, v. SKYVIEW AVIATION LLC, a California Limited Liability Company and DOES 1-50, Defendants.

United States District Court, E.D. California, Sacramento Division.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 42 U.S.C. § 1396
Cause: 42 U.S.C. § 1396 - Tort Negligence
Nature of Suit: 385 Prop. Damage Prod. Liability
Source: PACER


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Global Aerospace (North America), Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Shalem Asher Massey , Bryan Cave LLP.

Cirrus Design Corporation, Plaintiff, represented by Shalem Asher Massey , Bryan Cave LLP.

Skyview Aviation LLC, Defendant, represented by Robert Edmund Davies , Donahue Davies, LLP.


STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT (LOCAL RULE 144); ORDER ON STIPULATION

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

JOHN A. MENDEZ, District Judge.

RECITALS

1. Plaintiffs Global Aerospace (North America), Inc., a Delaware Corporation and Cirrus Design Corporation dba Cirrus Aircraft, a Minnesota Corporation are represented by attorneys Shalem A. Massey and Dylan S. Kornbluth of BRYAN CAVE LLP. 2. Defendant Skyview Aviation LLC is represented by attorneys Robert E. Davies, Stephen J. Mackey, Mary A. Stewart and Gregory A. Nelson of DONAHUE DAVIES LLP. 3. On or about January 23, 2017, Plaintiffs electronically filed their Complaint in the above-entitled matter. 4. On or about April 22, 2017, service of process was affected upon Defendant Skyview Aviation LLC. 5. Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 15, Defendant Skyview Aviation LLC's responsive pleading to the Complaint was initially due to be filed and served on or before May 12, 2017. 6. On May 5, 2017, counsel for Plaintiffs and Defendant Skyview Aviation stipulated to extend Defendant Skyview Aviation's time to respond to the Complaint to and including June 9, 2017, an additional twenty-eight (28) days from the original May 12, 2017 response date, as provided for in Local Rule 144. 7. The parties have been actively pursuing settlement discussions in this case and would like additional time to continue these discussions, prior to Defendant Skyview Aviation having to file its responsive pleading. 8. Subject to the Court's approval, the parties hereto stipulate and agree that Defendant Skyview Aviation's time to file and serve its responsive pleading shall be extended an additional thirty (30) days from the current June 9, 2017 response date, and that Defendant's responsive pleading will be due to be filed and served on or before July 10, 2017. 9. The parties agree that this additional extension of time will best serve the parties' interests by allowing them additional time to pursue settlement negotiations. 10. Pursuant to Local Rule 144, the parties request that the Court issue the proposed order on this stipulation of the parties, in order to allow the parties time to continue their on-going settlement discussions.

STIPULATION

The parties do now hereby agree and stipulate as follows:

1. The time for Defendant Skyview Aviation LLC to file and serve its responsive pleading to the Complaint is extended to and including July 10, 2017, an additional thirty (30) days from the current June 9, 2017 response date.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

ORDER ON STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT

Pursuant to the foregoing Stipulation of the parties for extension of time for Defendant Skyview Aviation to respond to Complaint, and as provided for in Local Rule 144, it is hereby ordered that:

The time for Defendant Skyview Aviation LLC to file and serve its responsive pleading to the Complaint is extended to and including July 10, 2017, an additional thirty (30) days from the current June 9, 2017 response date.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases