RIGHETTI v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, 3:11-CV-02717-EMC. (2012)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20121205a34
Visitors: 36
Filed: Dec. 04, 2012
Latest Update: Dec. 04, 2012
Summary: STIPULATION EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT [L.R. 6-1(a).] EDWARD M. CHEN, District Judge. Pursuant to the United States District Court, Northern District of California Local Rule Rule 6-1(a) and 6-2, Plaintiff Gerald Righetti and Defendant Neil Richman, M.D. stipulate and request that the Court order that Dr. Richman shall have until fourteen dates after the next Case Management Conference, currently set for January 3, 2013, to respond to Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint. As requi
Summary: STIPULATION EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT [L.R. 6-1(a).] EDWARD M. CHEN, District Judge. Pursuant to the United States District Court, Northern District of California Local Rule Rule 6-1(a) and 6-2, Plaintiff Gerald Righetti and Defendant Neil Richman, M.D. stipulate and request that the Court order that Dr. Richman shall have until fourteen dates after the next Case Management Conference, currently set for January 3, 2013, to respond to Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint. As requir..
More
STIPULATION EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT [L.R. 6-1(a).]
EDWARD M. CHEN, District Judge.
Pursuant to the United States District Court, Northern District of California Local Rule Rule 6-1(a) and 6-2, Plaintiff Gerald Righetti and Defendant Neil Richman, M.D. stipulate and request that the Court order that Dr. Richman shall have until fourteen dates after the next Case Management Conference, currently set for January 3, 2013, to respond to Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint.
As required by Local Rule 6-2, the parties agree that the extension is necessary since the Court granted Plaintiff until January 14, 2013 to file an amended complaint (Docket No. 80) and the Second Amended Complaint does not allege any new facts as to Dr. Richman. By January 14, 2013, Plaintiff will either file a dismissal as to Dr. Richman or an amended complaint alleging new facts as to Dr. Richman. This is the first extension of time requested to respond to the Second Amended Complaint and will not affect the current schedule of the action.
SO ORDERED:
FootNotes
1. Pursuant to Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), the undersigned, Robert D. Sanford, attests under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United Stated that I obtained the concurrence of Meghan Woodsome in the filing of this Stipulation and that I have a record supporting this concurrence. /s Robert D. Sanford
Source: Leagle
