Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Center for Competitive Politics v. Harris, 2:14-cv-00636-MCE-DAD. (2014)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20140319e73 Visitors: 23
Filed: Mar. 18, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 18, 2014
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER RE EXTENSION OF TIME TO ANSWER OR OTHERWISE RESPOND TO COMPLAINT (Local Rule 144 (a)) MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr., Chief District Judge. Plaintiff Center for Competitive Politics and Defendant Attorney General Kamala D. Harris (collectively, the "Parties"), by and through their respective counsel, hereby stipulate and agree as follows: WHEREAS, on March 7, 2014, Plaintiff filed its Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief; WHEREAS, on or about March 20, 2014, Plaint
More

STIPULATION AND ORDER RE EXTENSION OF TIME TO ANSWER OR OTHERWISE RESPOND TO COMPLAINT (Local Rule 144 (a))

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr., Chief District Judge.

Plaintiff Center for Competitive Politics and Defendant Attorney General Kamala D. Harris (collectively, the "Parties"), by and through their respective counsel, hereby stipulate and agree as follows:

WHEREAS, on March 7, 2014, Plaintiff filed its Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief;

WHEREAS, on or about March 20, 2014, Plaintiff will file a Motion for Preliminary Injunction, which will be heard on April 17, 2014, or on the earliest date thereafter that is convenient for the Court;

WHEREAS, Defendant's last day to answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff's Complaint currently is April 1, 2014;

WHEREAS, in the interest of efficiency and economy, the Parties agree that Defendant's time to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint should be extended until after the resolution of the Motion for Preliminary Injunction;

WHEREAS, no previous extensions have been sought;

THEREFORE, pursuant to Local Rule 144 (a) and in consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby stipulated that:

Defendant's last day to answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff's Complaint shall be no later than 21 days after entry of this Court's order regarding the Motion for Preliminary Injunction.

ORDER

HAVING CONSIDERED THE STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES, AND GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, 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