Samuels v. Ahlin, 1:10-cv-00585-DAD-EPG (PC). (2018)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20181024769
Visitors: 5
Filed: Oct. 17, 2018
Latest Update: Oct. 17, 2018
Summary: ORDER GRANTING COUNTY DEFENDANTS' REQUEST FOR BRIEF EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE ANSWER (ECF NO. 106) ERICA P. GROSJEAN , Magistrate Judge . On October 15, 2018, the County Defendants filed a motion for an extension of time in which to file their answer. (ECF No. 106). As there is a pending motion for reconsideration of the order denying their motion to dismiss, the County Defendants ask that they be given five days from the date of the Court's ruling on the motion for reconsideration to file
Summary: ORDER GRANTING COUNTY DEFENDANTS' REQUEST FOR BRIEF EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE ANSWER (ECF NO. 106) ERICA P. GROSJEAN , Magistrate Judge . On October 15, 2018, the County Defendants filed a motion for an extension of time in which to file their answer. (ECF No. 106). As there is a pending motion for reconsideration of the order denying their motion to dismiss, the County Defendants ask that they be given five days from the date of the Court's ruling on the motion for reconsideration to file ..
More
ORDER GRANTING COUNTY DEFENDANTS' REQUEST FOR BRIEF EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE ANSWER
(ECF NO. 106)
ERICA P. GROSJEAN, Magistrate Judge.
On October 15, 2018, the County Defendants filed a motion for an extension of time in which to file their answer. (ECF No. 106). As there is a pending motion for reconsideration of the order denying their motion to dismiss, the County Defendants ask that they be given five days from the date of the Court's ruling on the motion for reconsideration to file their answer, unless a different time frame is stated in the ruling.
The Court finds good cause to grant this one extension, but notes that no further extensions will be permitted absent extraordinary circumstances.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the County Defendants have five days from the date of the Court's ruling on the motion for reconsideration to file their answer, unless a different time frame is stated in the ruling.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
