Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Bunkley-v-Verber, CV-17-05797 WHO. (2018)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20180130c45 Visitors: 10
Filed: Jan. 29, 2018
Latest Update: Jan. 29, 2018
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER ENLARGING TIME FOR PLAINTIFF TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS WILLIAM H. ORRICK , District Judge . Plaintiff JEFFREY BUNKLEY, by his attorney, Peter Goodman, and Defendants NICHOLAS VERBER, RANDOLPH COUSENES and SAN MATEO COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, by their attorney, John C. Beiers, County Counsel of San Mateo County, and Deputy County Counsel Karen Rosenthal, hereby stipulate and agree as follows: 1. On December 20, 2017, Defendants filed a Notice of Motion
More

STIPULATION AND ORDER ENLARGING TIME FOR PLAINTIFF TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS

Plaintiff JEFFREY BUNKLEY, by his attorney, Peter Goodman, and Defendants NICHOLAS VERBER, RANDOLPH COUSENES and SAN MATEO COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, by their attorney, John C. Beiers, County Counsel of San Mateo County, and Deputy County Counsel Karen Rosenthal, hereby stipulate and agree as follows:

1. On December 20, 2017, Defendants filed a Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss and Memorandum of Points and Authorities ("Motion) (Document 16) setting a hearing date of February 14, 2018.

2. On January 5, 2018, the parties filed a Stipulation and Order requesting that the hearing date on the Motion be continued to March 7, 2018, and that the date for the filing of Plaintiff's response to the Motion be enlarged to January 30, 2018, and the date for the filings of Defendants' reply be enlarged to February 21, 2018. (Document 20.) The Court issued an order granted the parties' requests later the same day. (Document 21.)

3. The parties had requested one prior continuance in this matter that was granted by the Court modifying the date of the Case Management Conference from January 9, 2018, to January 16, 2018. (Document 15.)

4. Plaintiff's counsel is requesting an additional week to file his response to the defendants' Motion. The Defendants are not opposed to that request. The parties therefore stipulate and agree that the time for the filing of Plaintiff's response to the Motion be enlarged from January 30, 2018, to February 6, 2018.

SO STIPULATED

ORDER ENLARGING TIME FOR PLAINTIFF TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS

Based on the stipulation of the parties and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the time for Plaintiff to file his response to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is enlarged to February 6, 2018.

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