RUBANG v. FOCARINO, 2:16-cv-00088-GEB-AC. (2016)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20160122676
Visitors: 18
Filed: Jan. 20, 2016
Latest Update: Jan. 20, 2016
Summary: ORDER ALLISON CLAIRE , Magistrate Judge . This matter is before the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). Defendants USPTO and the United States have moved ex parte for an extension of time to March 7, 2016, to respond to plaintiff's complaint. ECF No. 3. Defendants argue that there is good cause for an extension because the confusing nature of plaintiff's complaint makes it impossible to respond to in a timely manner. Id. Defendants also represent that in accordance with Local R
Summary: ORDER ALLISON CLAIRE , Magistrate Judge . This matter is before the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). Defendants USPTO and the United States have moved ex parte for an extension of time to March 7, 2016, to respond to plaintiff's complaint. ECF No. 3. Defendants argue that there is good cause for an extension because the confusing nature of plaintiff's complaint makes it impossible to respond to in a timely manner. Id. Defendants also represent that in accordance with Local Ru..
More
ORDER
ALLISON CLAIRE, Magistrate Judge.
This matter is before the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). Defendants USPTO and the United States have moved ex parte for an extension of time to March 7, 2016, to respond to plaintiff's complaint. ECF No. 3. Defendants argue that there is good cause for an extension because the confusing nature of plaintiff's complaint makes it impossible to respond to in a timely manner. Id. Defendants also represent that in accordance with Local Rule 144, they tried but were unable to secure a stipulated extension from plaintiff. Id. In light of the foregoing, and for good cause shown, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that defendants' ex parte motion for an extension of time, ECF No. 3, is GRANTED. Defendants must file a responsive motion or pleading by March 7, 2016.
Source: Leagle
