Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

H.P.D. Consolidation, Inc. v. Pina, 3:15-cv-05309 EMC. (2016)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20160223853 Visitors: 13
Filed: Feb. 22, 2016
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2016
Summary: STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT EDWARD M. CHEN , District Judge . TO THE COURT, AND TO ALL INTERESTED PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: Plaintiff H.P.D. Consolidation, Inc. (Plaintiff) and Defendant Rajiv Malhan (Defendant Malhan), by and through their respective counsel of record, hereby stipulate pursuant to Local Rule 6-1 that Defendant Malhan shall have to and including March 25, 2016 to file a response to Plaintiff's Complaint. This agreed extension of
More

STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT

TO THE COURT, AND TO ALL INTERESTED PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

Plaintiff H.P.D. Consolidation, Inc. (Plaintiff) and Defendant Rajiv Malhan (Defendant Malhan), by and through their respective counsel of record, hereby stipulate pursuant to Local Rule 6-1 that Defendant Malhan shall have to and including March 25, 2016 to file a response to Plaintiff's Complaint. This agreed extension of time will not alter the date of any event or deadline already fixed by Court order. This is the second time modification requested by Defendant Malhan in this matter. Previously, Plaintiff stipulated to an extension of time for Defendants Belmont Wine Exchange, LLC, Michael Shemali, Wines of the World, LLC, Tri Cities Liquor & Spirits, LLC, Matt Myers, Hi-Time Wine Cellars, David L. Borges and Rajiv Malhan to respond to the Complaint. See Docket Nos. 29, 42, 54 and 66.

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