Lemus v. Berryhill, 16-cv-06163-RS. (2017)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20170316975
Visitors: 25
Filed: Mar. 15, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 15, 2017
Summary: STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME FOR PLAINTIFF TO FILE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT RICHARD SEEBORG , 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 Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment will be June 19, 2017. This extension is nece
Summary: STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME FOR PLAINTIFF TO FILE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT RICHARD SEEBORG , 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 Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment will be June 19, 2017. This extension is neces..
More
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME FOR PLAINTIFF TO FILE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
RICHARD SEEBORG, 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 Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment will be June 19, 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
