HUGGINS v. SIERRA JOINT COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT, 2:15-cv-02098-WBS-CKD. (2016)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20160115g99
Visitors: 4
Filed: Jan. 12, 2016
Latest Update: Jan. 12, 2016
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR EXTENSION TO DEFENDANTS TO FILE RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT WILLIAM B. SHUBB , District Judge . Pursuant to Local Rule 144(a), the parties agree and stipulate that Defendants should be granted additional time to file a response to Plaintiff's Complaint or the following reasons: — Plaintiff has alleged claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983, the Unruh Civil Rights Act, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress and neglige
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR EXTENSION TO DEFENDANTS TO FILE RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT WILLIAM B. SHUBB , District Judge . Pursuant to Local Rule 144(a), the parties agree and stipulate that Defendants should be granted additional time to file a response to Plaintiff's Complaint or the following reasons: — Plaintiff has alleged claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983, the Unruh Civil Rights Act, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress and negligen..
More
STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR EXTENSION TO DEFENDANTS TO FILE RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT
WILLIAM B. SHUBB, District Judge.
Pursuant to Local Rule 144(a), the parties agree and stipulate that Defendants should be granted additional time to file a response to Plaintiff's Complaint or the following reasons:
— Plaintiff has alleged claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Unruh Civil Rights Act, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress and negligence;
— On December 9, 2015, in order obviate the need to prepare and file a motion to dismiss, defense counsel sent Plaintiff's counsel a lengthy meet and confer letter prior to filing a motion to dismiss detailing Defendants' position that each claim is subject to dismissal based on various legal arguments;
— Due to the press of business, Plaintiff's counsel has been unable to review the substance of Defendants' cited legal authority, and intends to do so within the next week;
— Defendants' responsive pleading is due on January 15, 2016 if a further extension is not granted by the Court;
— In order to potentially avoid a motion to dismiss, the parties request additional time to complete the meet and confer process;
— If an extension is not granted, Defendants will be forced to file a motion to dismiss within the next few days.
The parties therefore agree and stipulate that Defendants should be granted an additional extension to file a response to Plaintiff's Complaint. This extension may help to avoid the need for a motion to dismiss to be filed, or at least significantly narrow the issues.
The parties request an order from the Court that Defendants' time to file a response to Plaintiff's Complaint be extended for two additional weeks, to Friday, January 29, 2016.
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
