Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Sartiaguda v. Berryhill, 2:17-cv-02280-CMK. (2018)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20180725869 Visitors: 13
Filed: Jul. 24, 2018
Latest Update: Jul. 24, 2018
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME OF 45 DAYS FOR DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT CRAIG M. KELLISON , Magistrate Judge . IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and between the parties, through their respective counsel of record, that Defendant shall have an extension of time of 45 additional days to respond to Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. The current due date was July 19, 2018. The new due date will be September 4, 2018 (since September 2, 2018 f
More

STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME OF 45 DAYS FOR DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and between the parties, through their respective counsel of record, that Defendant shall have an extension of time of 45 additional days to respond to Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. The current due date was July 19, 2018. The new due date will be September 4, 2018 (since September 2, 2018 falls on the weekend, followed by the federal holiday on September 3, 2018).

This is Defendant's second request for an extension of time in this case. There is good cause for this request. Since the Court's granting of the Defendant's request for an extension of time, Defendant's counsel has been addressing a full workload of district court matters and other matters that could not be assigned to another attorney. In addition, the parties have begun discussion of a possible voluntary remand settlement, and Defendant is requesting additional time to review the case. Lastly, additional time is necessary given that Defendant's counsel will be on pre-approved leave for multiple weeks including in August.

Thus, Defendant is respectfully requesting additional time up to and including September 4, 2018, to respond to Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in this case, should the case not go forward with a voluntary remand. Defendant apologizes for the tardy request. This request is made in good faith with no intention to unduly delay the proceedings.

ORDER

APPROVED AND 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