Stapleton v. Colvin, 1929 JST. (2016)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20161205912
Visitors: 20
Filed: Dec. 01, 2016
Latest Update: Dec. 01, 2016
Summary: STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME FOR PLAINTIFF TO FILE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT JON S. TIGAR , District Judge . IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and between the parties, through their respective counsel of record, that Plaintiff shall have a first extension of time of 90 days to file her Motion for Summary Judgment in response to Defendant's Answer. The new due date for filing Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment will be March 4, 2017. This extension is necess
Summary: STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME FOR PLAINTIFF TO FILE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT JON S. TIGAR , District Judge . IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and between the parties, through their respective counsel of record, that Plaintiff shall have a first extension of time of 90 days to file her Motion for Summary Judgment in response to Defendant's Answer. The new due date for filing Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment will be March 4, 2017. This extension is necessa..
More
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME FOR PLAINTIFF TO FILE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
JON S. TIGAR, District Judge.
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and between the parties, through their respective counsel of record, that Plaintiff shall have a first extension of time of 90 days to file her Motion for Summary Judgment in response to Defendant's Answer. The new due date for filing Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment will be March 4, 2017.
This extension is necessary for Plaintiff to find an attorney to represent her in this matter. Plaintiff Pro Se sincerely apologizes to the Court and to Defendant for any inconvenience caused by this delay. The parties further stipulate that the Court's Scheduling Order shall be modified accordingly.
ORDER:
APPROVED AND SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
