Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Takano v. Procter & Gamble Company, 2:17-cv-00385 TLN-AC. (2018)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20181212999 Visitors: 11
Filed: Dec. 11, 2018
Latest Update: Dec. 11, 2018
Summary: JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER EXTENDING THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY'S TIME TO ANSWER THE COMPLAINT TROY L. NUNLEY , District Judge . WHEREAS, Plaintiffs Tom Takano and Tracy McCarthy ("Plaintiffs") filed their Class Action Complaint ("Complaint") in this action on February 21, 2017. WHEREAS, the Parties are in discussions to resolve this action. WHEREAS, in accordance with Local Rule 144, the Plaintiffs and P&G have agreed to extend the time for P&G to answer the Complaint up to and includ
More

JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER EXTENDING THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY'S TIME TO ANSWER THE COMPLAINT

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs Tom Takano and Tracy McCarthy ("Plaintiffs") filed their Class Action Complaint ("Complaint") in this action on February 21, 2017.

WHEREAS, the Parties are in discussions to resolve this action.

WHEREAS, in accordance with Local Rule 144, the Plaintiffs and P&G have agreed to extend the time for P&G to answer the Complaint up to and including January 2, 2019, which is 28 days from the date that the answer is currently due, December 5, 2018. This is the second extension of time to respond to the Complaint agreed to by Plaintiffs and P&G. The previous agreement of an extension extended the date that the answer was due from November 7, 2018 to December 5, 2018.

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the Plaintiffs and The Procter & Gamble Co., through their respective counsel, that P&G's time to answer the Complaint shall be extended up to and including January 2, 2019. Pursuant to Local Rule 144(a), approval of this stipulation by the Court is necessary.

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