Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

PRENTICE v. NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION, C 12-05856 MEJ. (2013)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20130802735 Visitors: 10
Filed: Aug. 01, 2013
Latest Update: Aug. 01, 2013
Summary: STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING DEFENDANT NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION'S DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFFS' SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT MARIA-ELENA JAMES, Chief Magistrate Judge. Plaintiffs Nancy Prentice and Colin Haughin and Defendant National Railroad Passenger Corporatio ("Amtrak"), by and through their attorneys of record, hereby stipulate to extend the deadline for Defendant National Railroad Passenger Corporation to file an answer to Plaintiffs' Second Amended C
More

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING DEFENDANT NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION'S DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFFS' SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

MARIA-ELENA JAMES, Chief Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiffs Nancy Prentice and Colin Haughin and Defendant National Railroad Passenger Corporatio ("Amtrak"), by and through their attorneys of record, hereby stipulate to extend the deadline for Defendant National Railroad Passenger Corporation to file an answer to Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint to August 8, 2013. Defendant Amtrak requests that such extension be granted by the Court because Defendant requires additional time to research the factual allegations raised in the Second Amended Complaint and resolve whether Amtrak is contractually obligated to indemnify newly named Defendant Union Pacific.

ORDER

WHEREAS, good cause exists for the relief requested herein, the Court hereby makes the foregoing Stipulation the Order of this Court.

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