Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

BEKKERMAN v. CALIFORNIA BOARD OF EQUALIZATION, 2:16-cv-00709-MCE-EFB. (2016)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20160525a27 Visitors: 9
Filed: May 24, 2016
Latest Update: May 24, 2016
Summary: STIPULATION EXTENDING TIME FOR DEFENDANTS CALIFORNIA BOARD OF EQUALIZATION AND STATE OF CALIFORNIA TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT AND PETITION; ORDER MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr. , District Judge . Plaintiffs Alina Bekkerman, Brandon Griffith, Jenny Lee, and Charles Lisser (collectively, "Plaintiffs") and Defendants California Board of Equalization and State of California (collectively, "State Defendants"), by and through their respective counsel, hereby stipulate as follows, pursuant to Rule 144 of t
More

STIPULATION EXTENDING TIME FOR DEFENDANTS CALIFORNIA BOARD OF EQUALIZATION AND STATE OF CALIFORNIA TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT AND PETITION; ORDER

Plaintiffs Alina Bekkerman, Brandon Griffith, Jenny Lee, and Charles Lisser (collectively, "Plaintiffs") and Defendants California Board of Equalization and State of California (collectively, "State Defendants"), by and through their respective counsel, hereby stipulate as follows, pursuant to Rule 144 of the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California ("Local Rules"):

A. Whereas, Plaintiffs served the Complaint and Petition ("Complaint") in this action upon the State Defendants on April 4, 2016;

B. Whereas, Defendant AT&T Mobility, LLC, removed this action to this Court on April 4, 2016;

C. Whereas, pursuant to Rule 81(c)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the State Defendants' response to the Complaint was initially due on April 25, 2016;

D. Whereas, the State Defendants required additional time to prepare their response to the Complaint;

E. Whereas, the Plaintiffs and the State Defendants previously stipulated, pursuant to Rule 144(a) of the Local Rules, to extend State Defendants' deadline to respond to the Complaint from April 25, 2016 to May 23, 2016;

G. Whereas, the State Defendants continue to require additional time to prepare their response to the Complaint;

H. Whereas, the Plaintiffs and Defendants AT&T Mobility LLC, Sprint Solutions, Inc., T-Mobile USA, Inc., and Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless (collectively, "Carrier Defendants") have stipulated that the Carrier Defendants' time to respond to the Complaint may be extended to June 6, 2016, and the Court has approved that stipulation; and

H. Whereas, Plaintiffs have agreed that the State Defendants' deadline to respond to the Complaint may also be extended to June 6, 2016;

NOW, THEREFORE, PLAINTIFFS AND THE STATE DEFENDANTS STIPULATE AND AGREE THAT:

The State Defendants' deadline to file their response to the Complaint may be extended from May 23, 2016, to June 6, 2016.

ORDER

Good cause having been shown pursuant to the Stipulation Extending Time for Defendants California Board of Equalization and State of California to Respond to Complaint and Petition, the time for the State Defendants to respond to the Complaint shall be extended from May 23, 2016 to June 6, 2016.

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