arrow left
arrow right
  • ROBERT ROSS et al VS. C.C. MOORE & CO. ENGINEERS ASBESTOS document preview
  • ROBERT ROSS et al VS. C.C. MOORE & CO. ENGINEERS ASBESTOS document preview
  • ROBERT ROSS et al VS. C.C. MOORE & CO. ENGINEERS ASBESTOS document preview
  • ROBERT ROSS et al VS. C.C. MOORE & CO. ENGINEERS ASBESTOS document preview
  • ROBERT ROSS et al VS. C.C. MOORE & CO. ENGINEERS ASBESTOS document preview
  • ROBERT ROSS et al VS. C.C. MOORE & CO. ENGINEERS ASBESTOS document preview
  • ROBERT ROSS et al VS. C.C. MOORE & CO. ENGINEERS ASBESTOS document preview
  • ROBERT ROSS et al VS. C.C. MOORE & CO. ENGINEERS ASBESTOS document preview
						
                                

Preview

eo MUM KD wh RF BY NH 27 BENNETT, SAMUELSEN, REYNOLDS & ALLARD. APROFESSIONAL CORP. 130 MARINA VILLAGE SUITE 300 ALAMEDA, CA 925011084 (510) 444-7688 | ‘AY JOHN G. COWPERTHWAITE, CSB#.: 96375 jcowperthwaite@bsralaw.com LAUREN E. POWE, CSB#.: 239817 lpowe@bsralaw.com BENNETT, SAMUELSEN, REYNOLDS & ALLARD A Professional Corporation Attorneys at Law 1301 Marina Village Parkway, Suite 300 Alameda, California 94501 Telephone: (510) 444-7688 Facsimile: (510) 444-5849 Attorneys for Defendant SLAKEY BROTHERS, INC. ELECTRONICALLY Received Not Filed Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco MAR 20 2013 Clerk of the Court BY: VANESSA WU Deputy Clerk SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ROBERT ROSS and JEAN ROSS, Plaintiffs, vs. C.C MOORE & CO., ENGINEERS, et al., No. CGC-10-275731 [Unlimited Jurisdiction] STIPULATION AND ROS aR ORDER CONTINUING HEARING AND BRIEFING DATES ON DEFENDANT SLAKEY BROTHERS, INC.’S MOTION FOR Defendants. / SUMMARY JUDGMENT Date: March 21, 2013 Time: 11:00 a.m. Dept.: 503 Trial Date: June 10, 2013 PLAINTIFFS ROBERT ROSS and JEAN ROSS, and defendant SLAKEY BROTHERS, INC. (hereinafter the parties) by and through their respective attorneys of record, Brayton Purcell, and Bennett, Samuelsen, Reynolds & Allard AGREE and STIPULATE AS FOLLOWS: H “le STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER1 STIPULATION 2 In that defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (hereinafter, “Motion’), is 3 || currently set for hearing on May 10, 2013, the Parties agree and stipulate to move the 4 hearing of Defendant's Motion, and to extend the time within which plaintiff's may file their 5 | Opposition and defendant may file its Reply, as follows 6 . Original Hearing Date: May 10, 2013 at 9:30 a.m., 7 . Stipulated Continued Hearing Date May 14, 2013 at 9:30 am for, 8 alternatively, the next aiternative date available for the Court to hear this 9 Motion, to wit , 2013] 10 . Stipulated Continued Opposition Due Date, if any: May 6, 2013 by noon [or, ul alternatively, 12 calendar-days prior to the above alternative date that the R Court is able to hear this motion, to wit , 2013] B . Stipulated Continued Reply Due Date, if any: May 9, 2013 [or, alternatively, 4 5 calendar-days prior to the above alternative date that the Court is able to hear this Motion, to wit , 2013] 5 All Opposition papers must be served by no later than 12:00 p.m. on the respective 6 Stipulated Continued Due Date above u The parties further stipulate that if the Stipulated Continued dates are unavailable 8 for the Court, the Court may designate an alternative Continued Hearing Date available to 19 the Court (with further continued Opposition and Reply Due Dates), subject to counsel 20 modifying the stipulation to conform to the alternative date(s) al Such Stipulation is requested and necessary because the original hearing date 22 | noticed for May 10, 2013 is a Friday Department 503 does not hear law and motion 23 | matters on Fridays The Motion for Summary Judgment was filed and served on February 24 122, 2013. Good cause exists for the stipulation as there is no prejudice to the plaintiffs 25 || and extreme prejudice to the defendant who made a clerical error 26 27 AMT aaa STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDERThe parties stipulate that counsel cso an executed copy of the instant 2 | stipulation to the Court for its signature without a noticed ex parte appearance 3 IT 1S SO STIPULATED . 4| DATED March \4, 2013 BRAYTON PUR 5 By 6 itormey for Plaintif : DATED: March {7 , 2013 BENNETT § SAMUELSEN, REYNOLDS & . By: Hh ditin se u Attorneys for Defendant 2 SLAKEY BROTHERS, INC 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 BENNETT, SAMUELSEN, AeRoraSst MAL Sieh 3 AAO eteat STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDERORDER 2 The above stipulation of the parties is approved and accepted 3 GOOD CAUSE BEING FOUND, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the hearing date 4 | for Defendant SLAKEY BROTHERS, INC 'S Motion for Summary Judgement is moved 5 || from May 10, 2013 to May 14, 2013 for. , 2013] at 9:30 am, in 6 | Department 503 of this Court 1 IT iS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's opposition, if any, shall be filed and 8 served no later than May 6, 2013 [or, , 2013]; and Defendant's Reply, if 9 fany. shall be filed and served no later than May 9, 2013 [or, , 2013). 0 All Opposition papers must be served by no later than 12°00 p.m. on the respective 1 Stipulated Continued Due Date above 2 3 IT IS SO ORDERED 14 | DATED , 2013 15 5 Judge of the Superior Court 7 i8 9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 AY SUITE 301 CAM AaB STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDERPROOF OF SERVICE Case Name: Robert and Jean Ross v. C.C. Moore & Co. Engineers, et al. Court: San Francisco Superior Court Case No.: CGC-10-275731 tam a citizen of the United States, over the age of 18 years and not a party to the cause herein. | am an employee of BENNETT, SAMUELSEN, REYNOLDS & ALLARD, A Professional Corporation, 1301 Marina Village Parkway, Suite 300, Alameda, California 94501-1084. i am readily familiar with the standard business practices of this office in connection with the mailing, delivering (via messenger and overnight), facsimiling and e-file/serve via LexisNexis of documents from this office. On March 20, 2013, | served the following listed documents(s), by method indicated below, on the parties in this action: Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Continuing Hearing and Briefing Dates on Defendant Slakey Brothers, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment (¥) ELECTRONIC SERVICE: By electronically transmitting the documeni(s) listed above to LexisNexis File and Serve, an electronic filing service provider, at www. fileandserve.lexisnexis,com pursuant to the Court's Order mandating electronic service. The transmission was reported as complete and without error. | declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on March 20, 2013, in Alameda, California. & Ray B. Meier