STIPULATION EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT

EDWARD J. DAVILA, District Judge.

Pursuant to Civil L.R. 6-1, Defendant Sol Roter ("Mr. Roter") and Plaintiff Marble Bridge Funding Group, Inc. ("Plaintiff") (collectively "the Parties"), by their respective attorneys of record, in order to stipulate that Mr. Roter's time to respond to Plaintiff's Complaint is extended to the date on which Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint is due, state as follows:

WHEREAS, Plaintiff filed a Complaint for Damages on December 3, 2014;

WHEREAS, on January 20, 2015, Defendants filed the following: (1) Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction and Motion to Quash Service of Process [Dkt. No. 8]; and (2) Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) [Dkt. No. 9];

WHEREAS, on September 25, 2015, the Court issued an Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Quash Re: Dkt. No. 8 [Dkt. No. 36], which granted Defendants' motion as to Defendants BDB Capital, Inc. (sued as Liquid Capital of Colorado) and Bruce Dawson and denied the motion as to Mr. Roter;

WHEREAS, on September 25, 2015, the Court issued an Order Granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Re: Dkt. No. 9 [Dkt. No. 37], which dismissed all claims against Defendant Liquid Capital Exchange, Inc., with leave to amend;

WHEREAS, the Court's September 25, 2015 Orders [Dkt. Nos. 36 and 37] require Plaintiff to file any amended complaint in response to the Orders on or before October 12, 2015;

WHEREAS, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 12(a)(4), Mr. Roter's pleading in response to Plaintiff's Complaint is presently due on October 9, 2015;

WHEREAS, Plaintiff has advised Defendants that it intends on filing an Amended Complaint; and

WHEREAS, the Parties agree to extend the date on which Mr. Roter's response to the Complaint is due to the date on which Defendants' response to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint is due.

THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties to the above-entitled action, through their respective counsel, that the date on which Defendant Sol Roter's response to the Complaint is due is extended to the date on which Defendants' response to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint is due.