Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Parks v. Rohlfing, 2:15-CV-01505-KJM-CKD (PC). (2018)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20180305753 Visitors: 8
Filed: Mar. 02, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2018
Summary: STIPULATION TO EXTEND PERIOD TO FILE REPLY IN RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT; DECLARATION OF JEFF DOMINIC PRICE; PROPOSED ORDER CAROLYN K. DELANEY , Magistrate Judge . TO: THE HONORABLE CAROLYN DELANEY, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND TO THE DEFENDANT AND ITS ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: WHEREFORE the parties, though their counsel of record, have met and conferred and, for good cause, have agreed to stipulate to a 14-day extension of the
More

STIPULATION TO EXTEND PERIOD TO FILE REPLY IN RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT; DECLARATION OF JEFF DOMINIC PRICE; PROPOSED ORDER

TO: THE HONORABLE CAROLYN DELANEY, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND TO THE DEFENDANT AND ITS ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

WHEREFORE the parties, though their counsel of record, have met and conferred and, for good cause, have agreed to stipulate to a 14-day extension of the time period for the filing of a reply in response to the Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint.

IT IS STIPULATED that the period for Plaintiff to file a reply be extended 14 days from March 1, 2018, to March 15, 2018.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

[PROPOSED] ORDER

Based on the Stipulation of Counsel, and good cause shown, the Court grants the stipulated extension of time requested. Plaintiff's reply shall be due on or before March 15, 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