Filed: Aug. 14, 2018
Latest Update: Aug. 14, 2018
Summary: STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR DEFENDANTS MANES AND MUNROE TO FILE A RESPONSIVE PLEADING; [PROPOSED] ORDER WILLIAM B. SHUBB , District Judge . Defendants Manes and Munroe were recently served with this lawsuit and their deadline to file a responsive pleading to the third amended complaint is August 13, 2018. The parties, through their counsel of record, agree to and request an extension of time for Manes and Munroe to file their responsive pleading. They request that this respo
Summary: STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR DEFENDANTS MANES AND MUNROE TO FILE A RESPONSIVE PLEADING; [PROPOSED] ORDER WILLIAM B. SHUBB , District Judge . Defendants Manes and Munroe were recently served with this lawsuit and their deadline to file a responsive pleading to the third amended complaint is August 13, 2018. The parties, through their counsel of record, agree to and request an extension of time for Manes and Munroe to file their responsive pleading. They request that this respon..
More
STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR DEFENDANTS MANES AND MUNROE TO FILE A RESPONSIVE PLEADING; [PROPOSED] ORDER
WILLIAM B. SHUBB, District Judge.
Defendants Manes and Munroe were recently served with this lawsuit and their deadline to file a responsive pleading to the third amended complaint is August 13, 2018. The parties, through their counsel of record, agree to and request an extension of time for Manes and Munroe to file their responsive pleading. They request that this responsive pleading be due twenty-one days following either the Court's ruling on the pending motion to dismiss or, if ordered, the filing of a fourth amended complaint.
The instant stipulation is necessitated by the fact that a motion to dismiss has already been filed by Defendants Baughman and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (ECF No. 33.) That motion is currently pending before the Court and is set for hearing on August 20, 2018. A ruling on the motion to dismiss could significantly effect what causes of action Manes and Munroe must respond to in their responsive pleading. A ruling could also result in an order to file a fourth amended complaint. Furthermore, there are additional defendants that Plaintiff is currently attempting to serve. Granting the stipulated extension of time would reduce the likelihood of duplicative motions to dismiss and increases the chances that all defendants could simply be included in one responsive pleading.
Based on the foregoing, the parties stipulate as follows: a responsive pleading for Manes and Munroe is due twenty-one days following either the Court's ruling on the pending motion to dismiss or, if ordered, the filing of a fourth amended complaint.
ORDER
Good cause appearing, the parties' stipulation for an extension of time for Defendants Manes and Munroe to file a responsive pleading is GRANTED. Defendants Manes and Munroe's responsive pleading is due twenty-one days after either a ruling on the pending motion to dismiss or, if ordered, the filing of a fourth amended complaint.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
