Filed: May 12, 2016
Latest Update: May 12, 2016
Summary: JOINT STIPULATION TO CONTINUE DEFENDANTS' TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT; ORDER THEREON MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR. , District Judge . Plaintiffs Alina Bekkerman, Brandon Griffith, Jenny Lee, and Charles Lisser (collectively " Plaintiffs "), on the one hand, and Defendants AT&T Mobility LLC (" AT&T "), Sprint Solutions, Inc. (" Sprint "), T-Mobile USA, Inc. (" T-Mobile "), and Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless (" Verizon ") (collectively, the " Carrier Defendants "), by and through their
Summary: JOINT STIPULATION TO CONTINUE DEFENDANTS' TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT; ORDER THEREON MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR. , District Judge . Plaintiffs Alina Bekkerman, Brandon Griffith, Jenny Lee, and Charles Lisser (collectively " Plaintiffs "), on the one hand, and Defendants AT&T Mobility LLC (" AT&T "), Sprint Solutions, Inc. (" Sprint "), T-Mobile USA, Inc. (" T-Mobile "), and Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless (" Verizon ") (collectively, the " Carrier Defendants "), by and through their ..
More
JOINT STIPULATION TO CONTINUE DEFENDANTS' TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT; ORDER THEREON
MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR., District Judge.
Plaintiffs Alina Bekkerman, Brandon Griffith, Jenny Lee, and Charles Lisser (collectively "Plaintiffs"), on the one hand, and Defendants AT&T Mobility LLC ("AT&T"), Sprint Solutions, Inc. ("Sprint"), T-Mobile USA, Inc. ("T-Mobile"), and Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless ("Verizon") (collectively, the "Carrier Defendants"), by and through their counsel of record, hereby stipulate and agree as follows:
Whereas Plaintiffs filed their initial putative class action Complaint on February 5, 2016 in Sacramento Superior Court against defendants, which the Superior Court ruled was a related case to the same plaintiffs' previously filed Writ Petition challenging the legality of Board of Equalization Regulation 1585;
Whereas Plaintiffs' Complaint seeks monetary remedies and declaratory and injunctive relief;
Whereas Defendant AT&T removed Plaintiffs' Complaint to this Court on April 4, 2016;
Whereas the Carrier Defendants' initial deadline to respond to the Complaint was April 11, 2016;
Whereas the Carrier Defendants required additional time to prepare their responses to the Complaint;
Whereas the Parties previously stipulated to a 28-day extension pursuant to Local Rule 144 to extend Carrier Defendants' deadline to respond to the Complaint from April 11, 2016 up to and including May 9, 2016;
Whereas the Carrier Defendants continue to require additional time to prepare their responses to the Complaint;
It is hereby STIPULATED and AGREED that the Carrier Defendant's deadline to respond to the Complaint shall be extended from May 9, 2016 up to and including June 6, 2016 to respond to the Complaint.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
ORDER
Good cause having been shown pursuant to the Joint Stipulation to Continue Defendants' Time to Respond to Complaint, the time for the Carrier Defendants to respond to the Complaint shall be extended from May 9, 2016 up to and including June 6, 2016.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
