Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

MyECheck, Inc. v. Zipmark, Inc., 14-CV-2399-JAM-KJN. (2015)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20150401d29 Visitors: 1
Filed: Mar. 31, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 31, 2015
Summary: JOINT STIPULATION EXTENDING THE TIME TO ANSWER JOHN A. MENDEZ , District Judge . Pursuant to L.R. 143 and L.R. 144, the parties jointly submit this Stipulation. WHEREAS, on October 10, 2014, plaintiff MyECheck, Inc. ("Plaintiff") filed the above-captioned complaint against Zipmark, Inc. and Jay Bhattacharya (collectively "Defendants") (ECF No.1); WHEREAS, Plaintiff did not serve a copy of the Complaint on Defendants, but Defendants subsequently agreed to waive service pursuant to Fed. R.
More

JOINT STIPULATION EXTENDING THE TIME TO ANSWER

Pursuant to L.R. 143 and L.R. 144, the parties jointly submit this Stipulation.

WHEREAS, on October 10, 2014, plaintiff MyECheck, Inc. ("Plaintiff") filed the above-captioned complaint against Zipmark, Inc. and Jay Bhattacharya (collectively "Defendants") (ECF No.1);

WHEREAS, Plaintiff did not serve a copy of the Complaint on Defendants, but Defendants subsequently agreed to waive service pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d);

WHEREAS, on December 23, 2014, the parties submitted a joint stipulation waiving service and setting a date of January 8, 2015 for Defendants to answer, move, or otherwise respond to the Complaint (ECF No. 5);

WHEREAS, on January 8, 2015, Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint in its entirety (ECF No. 6);

WHEREAS, on March 17, 2015, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants' motion to dismiss the Complaint, and, inter alia, dismissed all claims against Defendant Jay Bhattacharya (ECF No. 19);

WHEREAS, Defendant Zipmark, Inc. ("Zipmark") has not yet filed an Answer to the Complaint;

WHEREAS, Zipmark's Answer is presently due March 31, 2015;

WHEREAS, the parties would like to have additional time to engage in settlement discussions prior to Zipmark's Answer being filed;

It is hereby STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the undersigned counsel for the parties that Zipmark's time to further respond to the Complaint shall be extended by thirty (30) days, and Zipmark's Answer shall be due no later than April 30, 2015.

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