Webber v. Trans Union LLC, 2:18-cv-00951-APG-GWF. (2018)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20180828e00
Visitors: 15
Filed: Aug. 27, 2018
Latest Update: Aug. 27, 2018
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND TIME FOR PLAINTIFF TO RESPOND TO MOTION TO DISMISS [SECOND REQUEST] ANDREW P. GORDON , District Judge . Plaintiff Brian Webber ("Plaintiff"), by and through his counsel of record, and Defendant Trans Union LLC ("Trans Union") have agreed and stipulated to the following: 1. On May 24, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint [ECF Dkt. 1]. 2. On July 25, 2018, Trans Union filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint [ECF Dkt.8]. 3. Per prior stipulation, Plaintiff's Re
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND TIME FOR PLAINTIFF TO RESPOND TO MOTION TO DISMISS [SECOND REQUEST] ANDREW P. GORDON , District Judge . Plaintiff Brian Webber ("Plaintiff"), by and through his counsel of record, and Defendant Trans Union LLC ("Trans Union") have agreed and stipulated to the following: 1. On May 24, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint [ECF Dkt. 1]. 2. On July 25, 2018, Trans Union filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint [ECF Dkt.8]. 3. Per prior stipulation, Plaintiff's Res..
More
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND TIME FOR PLAINTIFF TO RESPOND TO MOTION TO DISMISS [SECOND REQUEST]
ANDREW P. GORDON, District Judge.
Plaintiff Brian Webber ("Plaintiff"), by and through his counsel of record, and Defendant Trans Union LLC ("Trans Union") have agreed and stipulated to the following:
1. On May 24, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint [ECF Dkt. 1].
2. On July 25, 2018, Trans Union filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint [ECF Dkt.8].
3. Per prior stipulation, Plaintiff's Response is due August 29, 2018.
4. Plaintiff and Trans Union have agreed to extend Plaintiff's response twenty-one days in order to allow the Parties to continue settlement negotiations. As a result, both Plaintiff and Trans Union hereby request this Court to further extend the date for Plaintiff to respond to Trans Union's Motion to Dismiss Complaint until September 19, 2018. While this is the parties' second request to stipulate, it is not being made for the purposes of delay.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME FOR PLAINTIFF TO RESPOND TO MOTION TO DISMISS
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
