Campbell v. Genpak, LLC, 3:18-CV-00596-GCM. (2019)
Court: District Court, W.D. North Carolina
Number: infdco20190115h72
Visitors: 4
Filed: Jan. 11, 2019
Latest Update: Jan. 11, 2019
Summary: ORDER GRAHAM C. MULLEN , District Judge . THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on Plaintiff Sharonda Campbell's MOTION TO STAY. Having carefully considered the Motion and the record, and being otherwise duly advised in the premises, the undersigned will grant the Motion. IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiff Sharonda Campbell's MOTION TO STAY is GRANTED. This case shall be stayed for thirty (30) days, up to and including February 11, 2019, in order to allow Plaintiff to complete the
Summary: ORDER GRAHAM C. MULLEN , District Judge . THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on Plaintiff Sharonda Campbell's MOTION TO STAY. Having carefully considered the Motion and the record, and being otherwise duly advised in the premises, the undersigned will grant the Motion. IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiff Sharonda Campbell's MOTION TO STAY is GRANTED. This case shall be stayed for thirty (30) days, up to and including February 11, 2019, in order to allow Plaintiff to complete the r..
More
ORDER
GRAHAM C. MULLEN, District Judge.
THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on Plaintiff Sharonda Campbell's MOTION TO STAY. Having carefully considered the Motion and the record, and being otherwise duly advised in the premises, the undersigned will grant the Motion.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiff Sharonda Campbell's MOTION TO STAY is GRANTED. This case shall be stayed for thirty (30) days, up to and including February 11, 2019, in order to allow Plaintiff to complete the review of her pending charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. On or before February 11, 2019, Plaintiff shall file her response to the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Brief in Support of the same (Docs. 10, 10-1) or otherwise provide the Court with a status report should the EEOC review be further delayed by the partial government shutdown such that filing of Plaintiff's responsive pleading is not possible.
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
