JOINT STIPULATION TO CONTINUE DEADLINE FOR METLIFE TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

EDWARD J. DAVILA, District Judge.

JOINT STIPULATION

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-1, Plaintiff Nia Mujadadi-Turan ("Plaintiff") and Defendant Metropolitan Life Insurance Company ("MetLife"), hereby jointly stipulate to an extension of time for MetLife to respond to Plaintiff's Complaint. The Parties agree and stipulate that MetLife will respond to Plaintiff's Complaint on or before October 12, 2015. In support of this Stipulation, the Parties agree and stipulate as follows:

1. On June 18, 2015, Plaintiff initiated the present action against MetLife in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. (See ECF Doc. No. 1).

2. MetLife was served with the Summons and Complaint in this action on June 26, 2015.

3. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 12(a)(1)(A)(i), MetLife's response to the Complaint was due on or before July 17, 2015.

4. The Parties submitted a stipulation to the Court agreeing to a thirty (30) day extension for MetLife to respond to the Complaint. Accordingly, MetLife's response to the Complaint was due on or before August 17, 2015. (See ECF Doc. No. 11).

5. On August 11, 2015, Defendant Motorola Mobility, LLC ("Motorola") and Plaintiff submitted a stipulation extending Motorola's deadline to answer Plaintiff's Complaint until September 10, 2015. (See ECF Doc. No. 13).

6. The Parties submitted a stipulation to the Court agreeing to an extension for MetLife to respond to Plaintiff's Complaint. MetLife's response to the Complaint was due on or before September 10, 2015. (See ECF Doc. No. 14).

7. The Parties are optimistic that a resolution can be reached in this matter, and the additional time will afford the Parties the opportunity to explore settlement opportunities without incurring additional costs of litigation. Therefore, the Parties stipulate and agree to extend MetLife's deadline to respond to Plaintiff's Complaint until October 12, 2015.

IT IS SO ORDERED.