Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

VAHORA v. MASOOD, 1:16-cv-01624-LJO-SKO. (2017)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20170221d15 Visitors: 22
Filed: Feb. 16, 2017
Latest Update: Feb. 16, 2017
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER RE RESPONSE OF NAJAM UL MUJTABA QARNI SHEILA K. OBERTO , Magistrate Judge . The parties through their respective counsel hereby agree that the response/answer of NAJAM UL MUJTABA QARNI will not be due until after the ruling on the currently pending Motion to Dismiss filed by NAEEM ULMUJTABA QARNI, SHEIKH M. MASOOD, M.D., and VALLEY DIAGNOSTICS LABORATORY, INC. (collectively, "Moving Defendants"). NAJAM UL MUJTABA QARNI's deadline for answering or responding to the ple
More

STIPULATION AND ORDER RE RESPONSE OF NAJAM UL MUJTABA QARNI

The parties through their respective counsel hereby agree that the response/answer of NAJAM UL MUJTABA QARNI will not be due until after the ruling on the currently pending Motion to Dismiss filed by NAEEM ULMUJTABA QARNI, SHEIKH M. MASOOD, M.D., and VALLEY DIAGNOSTICS LABORATORY, INC. (collectively, "Moving Defendants").

NAJAM UL MUJTABA QARNI's deadline for answering or responding to the pleadings will be the same as Moving Defendants' deadline to respond/answer, as determined by court order or statute

ORDER

Pursuant to the parties' stipulation (Doc. 18), the deadline for Defendant Najam Ul Mujtaba Qarni to file a responsive pleading shall be within the time prescribed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(4), unless otherwise ordered by the Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer