Mallard v. Berryhill, 1:17-cv-1212-JLT. (2018)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20180516b33
Visitors: 18
Filed: May 15, 2018
Latest Update: May 15, 2018
Summary: ORDER GRANTING AN EXTENSION OF TIME (Doc. 16) JENNIFER L. THURSTON , Magistrate Judge . On May 11, 2018, the parties stipulated that Defendant have an extension of thirty days to file a response to Plaintiff's opening brief. (Doc. 16) Notably, the Scheduling Order permits a single thirty-day extension by the stipulation of parties (Doc. 6 at 4), and this is the first extension requested by either party. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS: 1. The request for an extension of time (Doc. 16) is
Summary: ORDER GRANTING AN EXTENSION OF TIME (Doc. 16) JENNIFER L. THURSTON , Magistrate Judge . On May 11, 2018, the parties stipulated that Defendant have an extension of thirty days to file a response to Plaintiff's opening brief. (Doc. 16) Notably, the Scheduling Order permits a single thirty-day extension by the stipulation of parties (Doc. 6 at 4), and this is the first extension requested by either party. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS: 1. The request for an extension of time (Doc. 16) is G..
More
ORDER GRANTING AN EXTENSION OF TIME (Doc. 16)
JENNIFER L. THURSTON, Magistrate Judge.
On May 11, 2018, the parties stipulated that Defendant have an extension of thirty days to file a response to Plaintiff's opening brief. (Doc. 16) Notably, the Scheduling Order permits a single thirty-day extension by the stipulation of parties (Doc. 6 at 4), and this is the first extension requested by either party. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS:
1. The request for an extension of time (Doc. 16) is GRANTED; and
2. Defendant SHALL file a response to the opening brief on or before June 14, 2018.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
