Gangwer v. Verizon Wireless, 14-cv-00819-GEB-EFB. (2014)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20140530a53
Visitors: 5
Filed: May 28, 2014
Latest Update: May 28, 2014
Summary: SECOND STIPULATION TO EXTEND CELLCO PARTNERSHIP'S TIME TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER GARLAND E. BURRELL, Jr., Senior District Judge. Plaintiffs Jamie and Kelly Gangwer (collectively "Plaintiffs") and Defendant Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless ("Defendant"), by and through their counsel of record, hereby stipulate to extend Defendant's time to respond to Plaintiff's Complaint by 21 days, from May 29, 2014 to June 19, 2014. Good cause exists for this extension
Summary: SECOND STIPULATION TO EXTEND CELLCO PARTNERSHIP'S TIME TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER GARLAND E. BURRELL, Jr., Senior District Judge. Plaintiffs Jamie and Kelly Gangwer (collectively "Plaintiffs") and Defendant Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless ("Defendant"), by and through their counsel of record, hereby stipulate to extend Defendant's time to respond to Plaintiff's Complaint by 21 days, from May 29, 2014 to June 19, 2014. Good cause exists for this extension...
More
SECOND STIPULATION TO EXTEND CELLCO PARTNERSHIP'S TIME TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
GARLAND E. BURRELL, Jr., Senior District Judge.
Plaintiffs Jamie and Kelly Gangwer (collectively "Plaintiffs") and Defendant Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless ("Defendant"), by and through their counsel of record, hereby stipulate to extend Defendant's time to respond to Plaintiff's Complaint by 21 days, from May 29, 2014 to June 19, 2014. Good cause exists for this extension. The parties are actively discussing the allegations of the Complaint and informally exchanging information relevant to Plaintiff's allegations. Through this extension request, the parties seek an opportunity to evaluate the merits of the Complaint and possible resolution of the action without expending further judicial or litigant resources.
The Parties previously stipulated to a 28 day extension pursuant to Local Rule 144(a). [Document 5].
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
