Filed: Nov. 10, 2015
Latest Update: Nov. 10, 2015
Summary: FOURTH JOINT STIPULATION TO CONTINUE DEADLINE FOR DEFENDANT MOTOROLA MOBILITY, LLC TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT EDWARD J. DAVILA , District Judge . JOINT STIPULATION Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-1, Plaintiff Nia Mujadadi-Turan ("Plaintiff") and Defendant Motorola Mobility, LLC ("Motorola") (Plaintiff and Motorola are referred to as the "Parties"), hereby jointly stipulate to a fourth extension of time for Motorola to respond to Plaintiff's Complaint. Pursuant to the Parties Agreem
Summary: FOURTH JOINT STIPULATION TO CONTINUE DEADLINE FOR DEFENDANT MOTOROLA MOBILITY, LLC TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT EDWARD J. DAVILA , District Judge . JOINT STIPULATION Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-1, Plaintiff Nia Mujadadi-Turan ("Plaintiff") and Defendant Motorola Mobility, LLC ("Motorola") (Plaintiff and Motorola are referred to as the "Parties"), hereby jointly stipulate to a fourth extension of time for Motorola to respond to Plaintiff's Complaint. Pursuant to the Parties Agreeme..
More
FOURTH JOINT STIPULATION TO CONTINUE DEADLINE FOR DEFENDANT MOTOROLA MOBILITY, LLC TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT
EDWARD J. DAVILA, District Judge.
JOINT STIPULATION
Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-1, Plaintiff Nia Mujadadi-Turan ("Plaintiff") and Defendant Motorola Mobility, LLC ("Motorola") (Plaintiff and Motorola are referred to as the "Parties"), hereby jointly stipulate to a fourth extension of time for Motorola to respond to Plaintiff's Complaint. Pursuant to the Parties Agreement, Motorola will respond to Plaintiff's Complaint on or before December 9, 2015. In support of this Stipulation, the Parties agree and stipulate as follows:
1. On June 18, 2015, Plaintiff initiated the present action against Motorola in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. (See ECF, Doc. No. 1.)
2. Motorola was served with the Summons and Complaint in this action on July 21, 2015.
3. On August 11, 2015, the Parties agreed to a thirty (30) day extension for Motorola to respond to the Complaint. Pursuant to the stipulation, Motorola's response to the Complaint was due on or before September 10, 2015.
4. On September 10, 2015, the Parties agreed to a second thirty (30) day extension for Motorola to respond to the Complaint. Pursuant to the stipulation, Motorola's response to the Complaint was due on or before October 10, 2015.
5. On October 9, 2015, the Parties agreed to a third thirty (30) day extension for Motorola to respond to the Complaint. Pursuant to the stipulation, Motorola's response to the Complaint was due on or before November 9, 2015.
6. On November 6, 2015, the Parties have agreed to a fourth thirty (30) day extension of time for Motorola to respond to Plaintiff's Complaint. Accordingly, Motorola's response to the Complaint is now due on or before December 9, 2015.
7. This Stipulation will not alter the date of any event or any deadline already fixed by Court order.
8. This is the fourth extension of time sought in this matter.
We hereby attest that we have on file all holographic signatures corresponding to any signatures indicated by a conformed signature (/s/) within this e-filed document.
IT IS SO ORDERED
