Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

HATFIELD v. DaVITA HEALTHCARE PARTNERS, INC., 13-CV-05206 SBA. (2014)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20140820c65 Visitors: 8
Filed: Aug. 19, 2014
Latest Update: Aug. 19, 2014
Summary: STIPULATION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME FOR DEFENDANT TO RESPOND TO THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER SAUNDRA B. ARMSTRONG, District Judge. Plaintiffs Sandra Hatfield, Laurel Antonucci and Maureen Patricia Murphy ("Plaintiffs") and Defendant Renal Treatment Centers — California, Inc., erroneously sued as DaVita Healthcare Partners Inc. ("Defendant"), by and through its respective counsel of record, hereby stipulate and agree as follows: 1. WHEREAS, Defendant filed a motio
More

STIPULATION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME FOR DEFENDANT TO RESPOND TO THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

SAUNDRA B. ARMSTRONG, District Judge.

Plaintiffs Sandra Hatfield, Laurel Antonucci and Maureen Patricia Murphy ("Plaintiffs") and Defendant Renal Treatment Centers — California, Inc., erroneously sued as DaVita Healthcare Partners Inc. ("Defendant"), by and through its respective counsel of record, hereby stipulate and agree as follows:

1. WHEREAS, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' original Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 12(b)(6);

2. WHEREAS, this Court granted Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint with leave to amend and ordered Plaintiffs to file their First Amended Complaint consistent with the Court's rulings by June 9, 2014 and to meet and confer regarding the sufficiency of Plaintiffs' amended allegations;

3. WHEREAS, the parties stipulated twice to continue the deadline to respond to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint to give the parties time to meaningfully meet and confer and to decide whether to participate in private mediation;

4. WHEREAS, Plaintiffs timely filed their Second Amended Complaint on July 17, 2014;

5. WHEREAS, after Defendant sent Plaintiffs its proposed Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint pursuant to FRCP Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim on July 29, 2014, the parties stipulated to extend Defendant's deadline to file an Answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint from July 31, 2014 to August 20, 2014;

6. WHEREAS, Defendant sent Plaintiffs a slightly revised version of its proposed Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint pursuant to FRCP Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim on August 18, 2014;

7. WHEREAS, in order to allow the parties the opportunity to meet and confer regarding the sufficiency Plaintiffs' amended allegations contained in Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint, the parties stipulate: (1) to extend the deadline for Defendant to respond to Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint to August 27, 2014; (2) to allow Plaintiffs to file a Third Amended Complaint by August 27, 2014 if they so choose following the parties' meet and confer; and (3) in the event Plaintiffs' file a Third Amended Complaint on August 27, 2014, Defendant's deadline to file an Answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint shall be in accordance with applicable Rules in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and/or the Northern District Court's Local Rules.

8. WHEREAS, the parties' request is not made for the purpose of delay or any other improper purpose.

THEREFORE,

Pursuant to Rule 6-l(a) of the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, the Parties hereby stipulate: (1) to extend the deadline for Defendant to respond to Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint from August 20, 2014 to August 27, 2014 give the parties time to meet and confer; (2) to allow Plaintiffs to file a Third Amended Complaint by August 27, 2014; and (3) in the event Plaintiffs' file a Third Amended Complaint on August 27, 2014, Defendant's deadline to file an Answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint shall be in accordance with applicable Rules in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and/or the Northern District Court's Local Rules.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

[PROPOSED] ORDER

The Court, having considered the Parties' stipulation, hereby grant the parties' request: (1) to extend the deadline for Defendant to respond to Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint from August 20, 2014 to August 27, 2014 to give the parties time to meet and confer and; (2) to allow Plaintiffs to file a Third Amended Complaint by August 27, 2014; and (3) in the event Plaintiffs' file a Third Amended Complaint on August 27, 2014, Defendant's deadline to file an Answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint shall be in accordance with applicable Rules in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and/or the Northern District Court's Local Rules.

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