Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

MIKHAK v. UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX INC., 3:16-cv-00901-CRB (2016)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20160511937 Visitors: 27
Filed: May 10, 2016
Latest Update: May 10, 2016
Summary: JOINT STIPULATION TO MODIFY MOTION BRIEFING SCHEDULE AND ORDER CHARLES R. BREYER , Senior District Judge . WHEREAS, on April 25, 2016, Defendant University of Phoenix ("Defendant") filed a Notice of Motion and Motion to Compel Arbitration and to Dismiss ("Motion to Compel") Plaintiff's Complaint ("Complaint") or, in the alternative to this Action ("Motion to Compel"), where it noticed a hearing date of June 17, 2016, before the Honorable Charles R. Breyer. WHEREAS, pursuant to Civil L.R.
More

JOINT STIPULATION TO MODIFY MOTION BRIEFING SCHEDULE AND ORDER

WHEREAS, on April 25, 2016, Defendant University of Phoenix ("Defendant") filed a Notice of Motion and Motion to Compel Arbitration and to Dismiss ("Motion to Compel") Plaintiff's Complaint ("Complaint") or, in the alternative to this Action ("Motion to Compel"), where it noticed a hearing date of June 17, 2016, before the Honorable Charles R. Breyer.

WHEREAS, pursuant to Civil L.R. 7-3 of the Local Rules of Practice in Civil Proceedings before the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, the present deadline for Plaintiff to file and serve her Opposition to the Motion to Compel is May 9, 2017and the deadline for Defendant to file and serve its Reply is presently May 16, 2016.

WHEREAS, Plaintiff's counsel, Howard Moore, Jr., returned to Atlanta Georgia over the weekend of April 30, 2016 to attend a funeral, and therefore, his time to address the issues presented by Defendant's Motion has been severely curtailed.

WHEREAS, Plaintiff's counsel William C. McNeill, III, also had a long schedule trip planned to the East Coast and therefore, his time to address Defendant's motion has also been severely curtailed.

NOW THEREFORE, Plaintiff Bahar Mikhak and Defendant, by and through their undersigned counsel, HEREBY STIPULATE AND AGREE AS FOLLOWS:

1. Plaintiff is afforded an extension, until May 20, 2016, to file and serve her Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint; 2. Defendant is afforded an extension, until June 3, 2016, to file and serve its Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

GENERAL ORDER 45 ATTESTATION

In accordance with General Order 45, concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from each of the signatories, and I shall maintain records to support this concurrence for subsequent production for the court if so ordered or for inspection upon request by a party.

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