Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Spearman v. Lifefactory, Inc., 2:17-cv-01647-TLN-KJN. (2017)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20171005e47 Visitors: 5
Filed: Oct. 03, 2017
Latest Update: Oct. 03, 2017
Summary: JOINT STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO INITIAL COMPLAINT; ORDER TROY L. NUNLEY , District Judge . Defendant Lifefactory, Inc., through its counsel, and Plaintiff Dusty Spearman, through his counsel, hereby stipulate and agree as follows: WHEREAS, Plaintiff filed the Complaint on August 8, 2017. WHEREAS, Plaintiff served Defendant on August 16, 2017. WHEREAS, the time for Defendant to respond to the Complaint was extended to October 5, 2017 via Stipulation between the parties. WH
More

JOINT STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO INITIAL COMPLAINT; ORDER

Defendant Lifefactory, Inc., through its counsel, and Plaintiff Dusty Spearman, through his counsel, hereby stipulate and agree as follows:

WHEREAS, Plaintiff filed the Complaint on August 8, 2017.

WHEREAS, Plaintiff served Defendant on August 16, 2017.

WHEREAS, the time for Defendant to respond to the Complaint was extended to October 5, 2017 via Stipulation between the parties.

WHEREAS, the parties are attempting to resolve this dispute without the need for further litigation in this Court.

WHEREAS extending this deadline would prejudice no party;

WHEREAS, for good cause shown, the parties stipulate to extend the deadline for Defendant to respond to the Complaint to October 16, 2017 and hereby submit that stipulation for approval by the Court.

Having considered the Stipulation, and for good cause shown, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:

Defendant's deadline to respond to the Complaint is continued to October 16, 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