From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

St. Paul Mercury Insurance Co. v. American Safety Indemnity Co.

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, N.D. California, San Francisco Division
Apr 29, 2013
3:13-cv-01082 EMC, 3:13-cv-01082 EMC (N.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2013)

Opinion

          THE AGUILERA LAW GROUP, APLC, A. ERIC AGUILERA (SBN 192390), KIMBERLY R. ARNAL (SBN 200448), Los Angeles, CA, Attorneys for Plaintiff, ST. PAUL MERCURY INSURANCE COMPANY.

          SELMAN BREITMAN LLP, GREGORY J. NEWMAN, Attorneys for Defendant, ASPEN SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY.


          STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME FOR ASPEN SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY TO FILE A RESPONSIVE PLEADING; [PROPOSED] ORDER

          EDWARD M. CHEN, District Judge.

         This Stipulation is entered into by and between Plaintiff St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company ("St. Paul") and Defendant Aspen Specialty Insurance Company ("Aspen") by and through their respective counsel of record.

         RECITALS

         1. WHEREAS St. Paul filed its complaint in the instant action on March 8, 2013;

         2. WHEREAS St. Paul served Aspen with the summons and complaint in this action on March 19, 2013;

         3. WHEREAS, under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 12(a)(1), Aspen's response was due by April 10, 2013;

         4. WHEREAS, St. Paul provided Aspen with a fifteen (15) day extension of time to file a responsive pleading in this action, such that Aspen's response to the complaint became April 25, 2013;

         5. WHEREAS, Aspen needs and St. Paul is willing to provide another extension of time to file a responsive pleading in this action;

         6. Whereas, St. Paul and Aspen agree that the further extension of time for Aspen to file a responsive pleading to the Complaint will not alter the date of any event or any deadline already fixed by Court order.

         IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED:

         7. Aspen is granted a fifteen (15) day extension of time to file a responsive pleading in this action, such that Aspen's response to the complaint is now due on May 10, 2013.

         8. This stipulation shall not constitute an appearance by Aspen. Aspen does not waive its right to challenge the Court's jurisdiction over this matter and/or whether Aspen was validly served with summons and complaint.

          ORDER

         The Court having reviewed the stipulation between Plaintiff St. Paul and Defendant Aspen further extending the time for Aspen to respond to the complaint, the Court grants the stipulation and orders that Aspen shall have through and until May 10, 2013 to respond to the Complaint.

         IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

St. Paul Mercury Insurance Co. v. American Safety Indemnity Co.

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, N.D. California, San Francisco Division
Apr 29, 2013
3:13-cv-01082 EMC, 3:13-cv-01082 EMC (N.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2013)
Case details for

St. Paul Mercury Insurance Co. v. American Safety Indemnity Co.

Case Details

Full title:ST. PAUL MERCURY INSURANCE COMPANY, a Minnesota corporation, Plaintiff, v…

Court:United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, N.D. California, San Francisco Division

Date published: Apr 29, 2013

Citations

3:13-cv-01082 EMC, 3:13-cv-01082 EMC (N.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2013)