Ross v. Berryhill, 1:17-cv-01439-JLT. (2018)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20180612757
Visitors: 9
Filed: Jun. 11, 2018
Latest Update: Jun. 11, 2018
Summary: ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME JENNIFER L. THURSTON , Magistrate Judge . On June 8, 2018, the parties filed a stipulation for Plaintiff to have a 45-day extension of time to file an opening brief. (Doc. 17) The Scheduling Order allows for a single extension of thirty days by the stipulation of the parties (Doc. 5 at 4). Beyond the single extension of thirty days, "requests to modify [the scheduling] order must be made by written motion and will be granted only
Summary: ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME JENNIFER L. THURSTON , Magistrate Judge . On June 8, 2018, the parties filed a stipulation for Plaintiff to have a 45-day extension of time to file an opening brief. (Doc. 17) The Scheduling Order allows for a single extension of thirty days by the stipulation of the parties (Doc. 5 at 4). Beyond the single extension of thirty days, "requests to modify [the scheduling] order must be made by written motion and will be granted only f..
More
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME
JENNIFER L. THURSTON, Magistrate Judge.
On June 8, 2018, the parties filed a stipulation for Plaintiff to have a 45-day extension of time to file an opening brief. (Doc. 17) The Scheduling Order allows for a single extension of thirty days by the stipulation of the parties (Doc. 5 at 4).
Beyond the single extension of thirty days, "requests to modify [the scheduling] order must be made by written motion and will be granted only for good cause." (Doc. 5 at 4) Accordingly, the Court construes the stipulation of the parties to be a motion to amend the Scheduling Order. The parties report "there is good cause for the request for forty-five (45) days instead of thirty (30)," because "the parties are in discussion regarding settlement of this case." (Doc. 17 at 1-2) The parties assert "delaying substantive briefing in this matter is appropriate in the event that a resolution can be reached." (Id. at 2) Accordingly, the parties request the deadline be extended from June 8, 2018, to July 23, 2018. (Id.)
Based upon the stipulation of the parties and good cause appearing, the Court ORDERS:
1. Plaintiff's request for an extension of time is GRANTED; and
2. Plaintiff SHALL file an opening brief no later than July 23, 2018.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
