ESTATE OF BONHAM v. BURWELL, 2:14-cv-02465-AC. (2015)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20150123a46
Visitors: 3
Filed: Jan. 22, 2015
Latest Update: Jan. 22, 2015
Summary: ORDER ALLISON CLAIRE, Magistrate Judge. On January 21, 2015, the parties filed a stipulation and proposed order to extend defendants' deadline to file the administrative record and a responsive pleading. ECF No. 5. Although the court is inclined to grant the parties' stipulated extension, it cannot because the parties do not specify the duration of the extension they are requesting. The court's October 21, 2014, scheduling order requires defendants to file the administrative record and a respo
Summary: ORDER ALLISON CLAIRE, Magistrate Judge. On January 21, 2015, the parties filed a stipulation and proposed order to extend defendants' deadline to file the administrative record and a responsive pleading. ECF No. 5. Although the court is inclined to grant the parties' stipulated extension, it cannot because the parties do not specify the duration of the extension they are requesting. The court's October 21, 2014, scheduling order requires defendants to file the administrative record and a respon..
More
ORDER
ALLISON CLAIRE, Magistrate Judge.
On January 21, 2015, the parties filed a stipulation and proposed order to extend defendants' deadline to file the administrative record and a responsive pleading. ECF No. 5. Although the court is inclined to grant the parties' stipulated extension, it cannot because the parties do not specify the duration of the extension they are requesting. The court's October 21, 2014, scheduling order requires defendants to file the administrative record and a responsive pleading within ninety (90) days of service of the complaint. ECF No. 4 at 2. The court's order also instructs plaintiff to file a certificate showing that he has served defendants within ten days of doing so. Id. The parties' stipulation includes a request for a 60-day extension, ECF No. 5, however, because plaintiff never filed a certificate reflecting service the court has no way of determining defendants' original deadline. Accordingly, the court denies the parties' stipulation and proposed order without prejudice, as the length of the requested extension is not clearly defined.
Source: Leagle
