COLBERT v. LEININGER, 2:13-cv-0382 KJM KJN P. (2016)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20160105653
Visitors: 13
Filed: Jan. 04, 2016
Latest Update: Jan. 04, 2016
Summary: ORDER KENDALL J. NEWMAN , Magistrate Judge . On November 6, 2015, defendant Leininger filed a motion requesting that the dispositive motion deadline be extended until November 20, 2015. (ECF No. 63.) On November 20, 2015, defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 65.) Plaintiff opposed defendant's summary judgment motion. (ECF No. 67.) On December 10, 2015, defendant requested an additional seven days to file a reply to plaintiff's opposition. (ECF No. 68.) Defendant's reply w
Summary: ORDER KENDALL J. NEWMAN , Magistrate Judge . On November 6, 2015, defendant Leininger filed a motion requesting that the dispositive motion deadline be extended until November 20, 2015. (ECF No. 63.) On November 20, 2015, defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 65.) Plaintiff opposed defendant's summary judgment motion. (ECF No. 67.) On December 10, 2015, defendant requested an additional seven days to file a reply to plaintiff's opposition. (ECF No. 68.) Defendant's reply wa..
More
ORDER
KENDALL J. NEWMAN, Magistrate Judge.
On November 6, 2015, defendant Leininger filed a motion requesting that the dispositive motion deadline be extended until November 20, 2015. (ECF No. 63.) On November 20, 2015, defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 65.) Plaintiff opposed defendant's summary judgment motion. (ECF No. 67.) On December 10, 2015, defendant requested an additional seven days to file a reply to plaintiff's opposition. (ECF No. 68.) Defendant's reply was filed on December 17, 2015. (ECF No. 69.)
Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Defendant Leininger's motion for modification of the discovery and scheduling order (ECF No. 63) is granted nunc pro tunc, and defendant's November 20, 2015 motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 65) is deemed timely filed.
2. Defendant's motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 68) is granted nunc pro tunc, and defendant's December 17, 2015 reply (ECF No. 69) is deemed timely filed.
Source: Leagle
