Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Jones v. City of Oakland, 4:19-cv-0789 HSG. (2019)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20190329b99 Visitors: 8
Filed: Mar. 28, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2019
Summary: STIPULIATION AND PROPOSED ORDER CONTiNUING TIlE TIME FOR DEFENDANTS TO FILE A RESPONSIVE PLEADING HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. , District Judge . TO ALL PARTIES AND THE CLERK OF THE ABOVE-CAPTIONED COURT: Pursuant to Northern District of California Local Rule 6-1(a), Defendants City of Oakland, Oakland Police Department and Harold Castro (collectively referred to as the "Defendants") and Plaintiffs Andrea Jones and Andrew Hodge stipulate to extend the Defendants' time to respond to Plaint
More

STIPULIATION AND PROPOSED ORDER CONTiNUING TIlE TIME FOR DEFENDANTS TO FILE A RESPONSIVE PLEADING

TO ALL PARTIES AND THE CLERK OF THE ABOVE-CAPTIONED COURT:

Pursuant to Northern District of California Local Rule 6-1(a), Defendants City of Oakland, Oakland Police Department and Harold Castro (collectively referred to as the "Defendants") and Plaintiffs Andrea Jones and Andrew Hodge stipulate to extend the Defendants' time to respond to Plaintiffs' initial complaint by 21 days, to April 17, 2019.

Plaintiff filed the initial complaint in this case on February 13, 2019. Plaintiff served the City on March 6, 2019. Defendant Harold Castro was served on March 8, 2019.

Extending the City's time to respond to Plaintiff's initial complaint by 21 days will not alter the date of any event or deadline already fixed by Court order in this matter.

Accordingly, the parties, through their respective counsel, agree to extend the time for the City to respond to the initial complaint by 21 days, to April 17, 2019.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, 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