Filed: May 10, 2016
Latest Update: May 10, 2016
Summary: UNOPPOSED MOTION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND DEADLINE FOR DEFENDANT TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT CARL W. HOFFMAN , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff 2-Way Computing, Inc. ("Plaintiff") hereby files this Unopposed Motion and [Proposed] Order to Extend Deadline for Defendant to Respond to the Complaint in accordance with LR IA 6-1 and LR IA 6-2. This is the second request to extend the proposed deadline. This request is not made after the response deadline which is currently May 15, 2016. The Compl
Summary: UNOPPOSED MOTION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND DEADLINE FOR DEFENDANT TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT CARL W. HOFFMAN , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff 2-Way Computing, Inc. ("Plaintiff") hereby files this Unopposed Motion and [Proposed] Order to Extend Deadline for Defendant to Respond to the Complaint in accordance with LR IA 6-1 and LR IA 6-2. This is the second request to extend the proposed deadline. This request is not made after the response deadline which is currently May 15, 2016. The Compla..
More
UNOPPOSED MOTION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND DEADLINE FOR DEFENDANT TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT
CARL W. HOFFMAN, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff 2-Way Computing, Inc. ("Plaintiff") hereby files this Unopposed Motion and [Proposed] Order to Extend Deadline for Defendant to Respond to the Complaint in accordance with LR IA 6-1 and LR IA 6-2. This is the second request to extend the proposed deadline. This request is not made after the response deadline which is currently May 15, 2016.
The Complaint (Doc. 1) was filed on February 29, 2016 and was served on ShoreTel, Inc. on or about March 25, 2016. A first extension to respond to the complaint was granted until May 15, 2016.
Plaintiff is currently in the process of finalizing an agreement which will resolve the claims in this litigation against Defendant. Plaintiff believes this agreement will be executed in the next few weeks and thereafter this case can be dismissed
The parties believe that the litigation of this matter will be best served by allowing an additional thirty (30) days to work on a resolution of this matter. Because an attorney for Defendant has not made an appearance in this case, Plaintiff files this motion to extend Defendant's deadline as an unopposed motion.
Accordingly, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court grant its request to continue the deadline for Defendant to respond to the Complaint until June 14, 2016.
