Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Mecklenberg v. Georgetown Divide Public Utility District, 2:14-cv-00750-TLN-DAD. (2014)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20140516691 Visitors: 48
Filed: May 14, 2014
Latest Update: May 14, 2014
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT TROY L. NUNLEY, District Judge. Plaintiff STACY MECKLENBERG ("Plaintiff") and defendant GEORGETOWN DIVIDE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT ("Defendant"), hereafter collectively referred to as the "Parties", by and through their respective counsel of record, hereby stipulate and agree that: WHEREAS, Plaintiff filed the above-entitled action on March 24, 2014; WHEREAS, Plaintiff granted Defendant a twenty-eight day extension of time to respon
More

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT

TROY L. NUNLEY, District Judge.

Plaintiff STACY MECKLENBERG ("Plaintiff") and defendant GEORGETOWN DIVIDE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT ("Defendant"), hereafter collectively referred to as the "Parties", by and through their respective counsel of record, hereby stipulate and agree that:

WHEREAS, Plaintiff filed the above-entitled action on March 24, 2014;

WHEREAS, Plaintiff granted Defendant a twenty-eight day extension of time to respond to Plaintiff's Complaint and the Parties filed their Stipulation for Extension of Time to Respond to Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief on April 14, 2014;

WHEREAS, Defendant's response to Plaintiff's Complaint is currently due on May 16, 2014;

WHEREAS, Defendant's counsel requested, and Plaintiff's counsel recently provided, examples of Plaintiff's billing statements with enlarged text and Plaintiff's counsel has agreed that these examples may be shared and discussed with Defendant at an upcoming board meeting in an effort to resolve this litigation;

WHEREAS, the Parties do not wish to incur further fees in preparing or opposing responsive motions or pleadings at this time and do not wish to cause the Court to use its time in considering responses to the Complaint if such efforts may be obviated;

WHEREAS, Plaintiff and Defendant are therefore in agreement that Defendant's deadline to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint may be extended by three weeks to June 6, 2014;

WHEREAS, an extension of time will not alter the date(s) of any event or deadline that has been set by the Court; and

WHEREAS, good cause exists for this extension to facilitate potential resolution of this matter and conserve the resources of the Parties, counsel and the Court.

STIPULATION

THEREFORE, the Parties to this action, by and through their respective attorneys, stipulate:

1. Defendant's time to respond to Plaintiff's Complaint is extended to June 6, 2014.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer