STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT

(Second Request)

CAM FERENBACH, Magistrate Judge.

Pursuant to LR 6-1, 6-2, and 7-1, Plaintiff Gina Miceli ("Plaintiff") and Defendants Citigroup, Inc. dba Citibank ("Citibank") and Jeffrey Dunmire ("Dunmire") (collectively referred to as "Defendants") respectfully request an order from this Court extending the deadline for Dunmire to file his response to the Complaint ("Complaint"), pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 6(b)(1), and LR 6-1, from December 7, 2015, up to and including, February 2, 2016, the same date Citibank's response is currently due.

Plaintiff's Complaint was filed on October 9, 2015 (Dkt. #1). Dunmire's response is due on or before December 7, 2015. On December 4, 2015, Plaintiff requested that Citibank waive service of summons in this action to save the unnecessary expense of serving a summons and complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d). Citibank's response is due on or before Tuesday, February 2, 2016. Since Defendants will be filing a joint response, it would be unnecessary for Dunmire to file a response prior to Citibank.

In addition, the parties are working on fulfilling their meet and confer obligations concerning moving the matter to arbitration in light of the Employment Arbitration Policy (the "ADR Policy"). Plaintiff's counsel has been out of the office due to a family emergency and the parties have been unable to have a meaningful meet and confer as to this issue, under no fault of either party. The parties intend to meet and confer over this issue before filing a response. Moreover, if the parties cannot come to an agreement concerning the ADR Policy, it would preserve judicial resources and additional unnecessary filings if Defendants can jointly respond to the complaint.

In light of the waiver of service and Plaintiff's counsel's unavailability due to the unforeseen circumstances, the parties agree that Dunmire may have up to and including Tuesday, February 2, 2016 to respond to the Complaint.

This is the second request for an extension. In an abundance of caution, Citibank was included in the Motion for an Extension to Respond to the Complaint — First Request because it was unknown whether the entity had been served.

This stipulation is filed before the response to the Complaint is due and is filed in good faith and not for the purpose of unwarranted delay.

ORDER

IT IS SO STIPULATED: