STIPULATED REQUEST FOR ORDER EXTENDING PLAINTIFF'S TIME TO RESPOND AND CONTINUING HEARING ON WALGREEN'S MOTION TO DISMISS

[N.D. CAL. CIV. L.R. 6-1(b), 6-2, 7-12]

JEFFREY S. WHITE, District Judge.

Pursuant to the United States District Court, Northern District of California Local Rules, Rules 6-1(b), 6-2, and 7-12, the parties stipulate as follows.

WHEREAS, plaintiff filed this action on January 23, 2015 (Dkt. No. 1), and defendant moved to dismiss it on March 11, 2015 (Dkt. No. 15);

WHEREAS, pursuant to N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-3(a), plaintiff's response to defendant's motion to dismiss is currently due on March 25, 2015;

WHEREAS, plaintiff has requested, and defendant has agreed, to a 14-day extension of plaintiff's time to respond to the motion to dismiss;

WHEREAS, the parties agree there should be a corresponding continuance of the April 17, 2015 hearing date defendant originally noticed;

WHEREAS, defendant is unavailable for a May 1, 2015 hearing; and

WHEREAS, no current Court-ordered event dates or deadlines are affected by this stipulation.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS STIPULATED BY AND BETWEEN THE PARTIES:

Upon the Court's Order, plaintiff's deadline for responding to defendant's motion to dismiss shall be April 8, 2015. Defendant's deadline for filing a reply, if any, shall be April 15, 2015. The hearing on defendant's motion to dismiss shall be continued to May 8, 2015.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED

I, Jack Fitzgerald, declare:

1. I am a member in good standing of the State Bars of California and New York; and of the United States District Courts for the Northern, Eastern, Central, and Southern Districts of California, the Northern, Southern, and Eastern Districts of New York, and the Western District of Wisconsin; and of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. I make this Declaration pursuant to N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 6-2(a), based on my own personal knowledge.

2. Plaintiff has requested an enlargement of time in which to respond to Walgreen's motion to dismiss in order to better consider Walgreen's jurisdictional arguments and explore a possible early resolution. Walgreens has stipulated to continuing the hearing date to May 8, 2015 (because Walgreens' counsel is unavailable on May 1), and extending plaintiff's response due date by two weeks, to April 8, 2015 (and correspondingly, Walgreens' deadline to reply to April 15, 2015).

3. The parties previously stipulated to an extension of Walgreen's time to respond to the Complaint. (Dkt. No. 9.)

4. The requested modification will push out by two weeks the hearing on Walgreen's motion to dismiss, but should not otherwise affect the case as it is in its beginning stages and there has been no scheduling order issue yet.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.

Executed this 20th day of March, 2015, in San Diego, California.