Filed: Jul. 06, 2016
Latest Update: Jul. 06, 2016
Summary: STIPULATED REQUEST TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE ANSWER IN EXCESS OF 28 DAYS; ORDER JOHN A. MENDEZ , District Judge . Plaintiff ALBERT DYTCH ("Plaintiff") and Defendants MECHAI LLC dba MAI THAI RESTAURANT; JOSEPH LOYOLA, Trustee of the LOYOLA TRUST dated December 13, 2009; and ANTONY LOYOLA, TRUSTEE of the LOYOLA TRUST dated December 13, 2009 (collectively "Defendants," and together with Plaintiff, "the Parties") hereby stipulate, pursuant to Local Rule (LR) 143, to an extension of time for Defend
Summary: STIPULATED REQUEST TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE ANSWER IN EXCESS OF 28 DAYS; ORDER JOHN A. MENDEZ , District Judge . Plaintiff ALBERT DYTCH ("Plaintiff") and Defendants MECHAI LLC dba MAI THAI RESTAURANT; JOSEPH LOYOLA, Trustee of the LOYOLA TRUST dated December 13, 2009; and ANTONY LOYOLA, TRUSTEE of the LOYOLA TRUST dated December 13, 2009 (collectively "Defendants," and together with Plaintiff, "the Parties") hereby stipulate, pursuant to Local Rule (LR) 143, to an extension of time for Defenda..
More
STIPULATED REQUEST TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE ANSWER IN EXCESS OF 28 DAYS; ORDER
JOHN A. MENDEZ, District Judge.
Plaintiff ALBERT DYTCH ("Plaintiff") and Defendants MECHAI LLC dba MAI THAI RESTAURANT; JOSEPH LOYOLA, Trustee of the LOYOLA TRUST dated December 13, 2009; and ANTONY LOYOLA, TRUSTEE of the LOYOLA TRUST dated December 13, 2009 (collectively "Defendants," and together with Plaintiff, "the Parties") hereby stipulate, pursuant to Local Rule (LR) 143, to an extension of time for Defendants to file a responsive pleading.
1. Status of Service.
The status of service is as follows:
• Joseph Loyola was served on June 15, 2016 with an Answer due on or before July 6, 2016.
• Mechai LLC dba Mai Thai Restaurant was sub-served and documents were mailed on June 17, 2016. The effective date of service is June 27, 2016 with an Answer due date of July 18, 2016.
• Antony Loyola has not yet been served, but counsel has agreed to execute a waiver such that a responsive pleading would be due August 19, 2016.
2. Factual Basis for Proposed Order.
On June 20, 2016, while on vacation out-of-state, Brady & Vinding was contacted about representing certain defendants. Upon return ten days later other defendants contacted Brady & Vinding regarding representation.
On July 1, 2016, counsel for the Parties met and conferred and agreed to engage in settlement discussions and seek this order extending time. Thus, the need for this extension became apparent today. (LR 144(d).)
The basis for the requested order is to allow sufficient time for the Parties to engage in meaningful settlement discussions. Those discussions will only be facilitated by the hiring of a Certified Access Specialist in order to obtain a report regarding barriers to access, if any, which exist at the subject property and, if appropriate, a certificate of compliance. That process is anticipated to take not less than 30 days.
Thereafter, if needed, the Parties will utilize the court's Voluntary Dispute Resolution Program (VDRP).
No prior extensions have been sought or granted. (LR 144(b).)
3. Due Date for Responsive Pleading.
The Parties stipulate to extend time for Defendants' responsive pleadings such that they be due on August 19, 2016. This extension does not alter any date or deadline set by Court order, but does exceed 28 days.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND ORDERED AND DECREED BY THE COURT, AS FOLLOWS:
Good cause appearing, a responsive pleading must be filed by Defendants on or before August 19, 2016 in order to avoid a default.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
