Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

JOE HAND PROMOTIONS, INC. v. KILEY, 2:13-CV-01547-TLN-KJN. (2013)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20130927973 Visitors: 13
Filed: Sep. 13, 2013
Latest Update: Sep. 13, 2013
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT TROY L. NUNLEY, District Judge. NOW COMES the Defendants, ART OF CIGARS LLC and ERIC M. STANION (hereinafter, collectively the "Defendants"), by and through their attorneys of record, MURPHY, CAMPBELL, ALLISTON & QUINN, and Plaintiff JOE HAND PROMOTIONS, INC. (the "Plaintiff") by and through their attorneys of record, Venardi Zurada LLP, (Plaintiffs and Defendants collectively, the "Parties"), who stipulate as follows: 1. WHEREAS, o
More

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT

TROY L. NUNLEY, District Judge.

NOW COMES the Defendants, ART OF CIGARS LLC and ERIC M. STANION (hereinafter, collectively the "Defendants"), by and through their attorneys of record, MURPHY, CAMPBELL, ALLISTON & QUINN, and Plaintiff JOE HAND PROMOTIONS, INC. (the "Plaintiff") by and through their attorneys of record, Venardi Zurada LLP, (Plaintiffs and Defendants collectively, the "Parties"), who stipulate as follows:

1. WHEREAS, on July 30, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Case No. 2:13-CV-01547-TLN-KJN (the "Action");

2. WHEREAS, Defendants' initial response to Plaintiff's Complaint must have been served and filed on or before September 13, 2013;

3. WHEREAS, the Parties desire to further discuss settlement of the Action without further litigation;

4. WHEREAS, the Parties agree, in good faith, and thus desire to extend Defendants' time to adequately respond to the Complaint and so as to prevent any prejudicial effects for not timely responding to the initial Complaint;

5. WHEREAS, the Parties agree to extend the deadline for responding to the Complaint by up to twenty-eight (28) days after the initial response deadline, in compliance with Local Rule 144 and FRCP Rule 6;

6. WHEREAS, all Parties that have so far appeared in the Action approve this stipulation and proposed order as to form, and certification of service is therefore not necessary pursuant to Local Rule 137 and FRCP Rule 5;

7. WHEREAS, this stipulation will not alter the date of any event or any deadline already fixed by an order of this Court;

8. NOW THEREFORE, it is stipulated by and between Plaintiff and Defendants, through their respective attorneys of record, as follows: Plaintiffs must file a response to Plaintiffs' Complaint on or before October 13, 2013.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

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