Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

ESTELL v. McHUGH, 3:15-cv-04898-MEJ. (2016)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20160606635 Visitors: 21
Filed: Jun. 03, 2016
Latest Update: Jun. 03, 2016
Summary: STIPULATION ALLOWING DEFENDANT LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED MOTION TO DISMISS MARIA-ELENA JAMES , District Judge . Plaintiff Quo Vat Estell ("Plaintiff") and Defendant Eric K. Fanning, Secretary, United States Army ("Defendant"), by and through their respective counsel, make the following representations and stipulate and agree as follows: 1. On May 31, 2016, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. Dkt. No. 15. 2. On June 3, 2016, Defendant contacted Plaintiff an
More

STIPULATION ALLOWING DEFENDANT LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED MOTION TO DISMISS

Plaintiff Quo Vat Estell ("Plaintiff") and Defendant Eric K. Fanning, Secretary, United States Army ("Defendant"), by and through their respective counsel, make the following representations and stipulate and agree as follows:

1. On May 31, 2016, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. Dkt. No. 15.

2. On June 3, 2016, Defendant contacted Plaintiff and indicated that there is a factual error in Defendant's motion which, once corrected, will eliminate one argument made in the motion. Specifically, Plaintiff received her Notice of Right to File a Formal Complaint of Discrimination by certified mail on April 1, 2014. Defendant's motion currently states that Plaintiff received the Notice document on March 26, 2014, as indicated in the Equal Employment Opportunity ("EEO") Counselor's report, which is an error. Defendant wishes to withdraw the argument that Plaintiff's Formal EEO complaint was untimely filed. See Dkt. No. 15 at Section III(C)(1).

3. Based on the foregoing, the parties stipulate and agree that Defendant may file an amended motion to dismiss on June 3, 2016 correcting the above-referenced fact and withdrawing the affected argument. Defendant will not add any new argument to the amended motion.

4. Plaintiff will have the requisite fourteen days to oppose the amended motion, and Defendant will have seven days to respond.

5. The parties stipulate and agree to a July 14, 2016 hearing date for the amended motion.

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