Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Daniel Sharpsmart, Inc. v. Smith, 1:17-cv-00403-LJO-SAB. (2017)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20170524870 Visitors: 7
Filed: May 23, 2017
Latest Update: May 23, 2017
Summary: JOINT STIPULATION EXTENDING TIME FOR STATE DEFENDANTS TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND ORDER THEREON LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL , Chief District Judge . Pursuant to Local Rule 144(a), Plaintiff Daniels Sharpsmart, Inc. and Defendants Karen Smith, Richard Pilorin, Alison Dabney, and Ginger Hilton (collectively, "State Defendants"), by and through their respective counsel, hereby stipulate to grant State Defendants additional time to respond to Plaintiff's Motion for P
More

JOINT STIPULATION EXTENDING TIME FOR STATE DEFENDANTS TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND ORDER THEREON

Pursuant to Local Rule 144(a), Plaintiff Daniels Sharpsmart, Inc. and Defendants Karen Smith, Richard Pilorin, Alison Dabney, and Ginger Hilton (collectively, "State Defendants"), by and through their respective counsel, hereby stipulate to grant State Defendants additional time to respond to Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction as set forth below:

WHEREAS, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction on May 9, 2017, set for hearing on June 8, 2017;

WHEREAS, pursuant to Local Rule 230© State Defendants' opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Preliminary Injunction is due May 25, 2017 and Plaintiff's Rely is due on June 1, 2017;

WHEREAS, Deputy Attorney General Renuka George, counsel for State Defendants had a medical emergency resulting from a car accident on May 18, 2017 and therefore State Defendants require additional time in which to respond to Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction;

WHEREAS, in the interest of justice and in an effort to enhance judicial efficiency and preserve resources, Plaintiff agrees to grant State Defendants seven (7) days additional time in which to respond to the Motion for Preliminary Injunction and the parties agree to move the June 8, 2017 hearing an additional seven (7) days to allow Plaintiff adequate time to Reply to State Defendants' Opposition;

WHEREAS, the extension sought will not alter any other date of any event or deadline already fixed by Court Order.

NOW THEREFORE, THE PARTIES HEREBY STIPULATE AND AGREE that the time in which State Defendants shall respond to Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction in this action shall be continued seven (7) in this action until June 1, 2017 and the hearing shall be continued until June 15, 2017.

ORDER

Based on the Parties' above Joint Stipulation, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the State Defendants' time to serve and file a response to Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction in the above entitled action shall be extended from May 25, 2017 to June 1, 2017 pursuant to Local Rule 144(a). The hearing on the motion shall be continued until June 15, 2017.

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