Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

ROSE v. EQUIFAX, INC., 17-cv-00419-MMC. (2017)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20170227945 Visitors: 22
Filed: Feb. 23, 2017
Latest Update: Feb. 23, 2017
Summary: ORDER RE: STIPULATIONS Re: Dkt. Nos. 18, 19. MAXINE M. CHESNEY , District Judge . On February 16, 2017, and February 17, 2017, respectively, plaintiff Lacy Rose entered stipulations with defendants Equifax, Inc. and TD Bank, USA National Association ("Stipulating Defendants"), by which the parties agreed to extend the time for Stipulating Defendants' responses to plaintiff's complaint and also, in the event such response is a motion to dismiss, to expand the briefing schedule thereon. To
More

ORDER RE: STIPULATIONS

Re: Dkt. Nos. 18, 19.

On February 16, 2017, and February 17, 2017, respectively, plaintiff Lacy Rose entered stipulations with defendants Equifax, Inc. and TD Bank, USA National Association ("Stipulating Defendants"), by which the parties agreed to extend the time for Stipulating Defendants' responses to plaintiff's complaint and also, in the event such response is a motion to dismiss, to expand the briefing schedule thereon.

To the extent the parties have agreed upon an extension of time to respond to plaintiff's complaint, such stipulation is effective "without a Court order." See Civil L.R. 6-1(a).

To the extent the parties wish to alter the briefing schedule, however, the parties are hereby advised that they will need to obtain court approval. See Civil L.R. 6-1(b) (providing "[a] Court order is required" for "any enlargement or shortening of time that alters an event or deadline . . . that involves papers required to be filed or lodged with the Court (other than an initial response to the complaint)").

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