Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

BAXTER v. COLVIN, 3:14-cv-01306-WHO. (2014)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20141020587 Visitors: 14
Filed: Oct. 16, 2014
Latest Update: Oct. 16, 2014
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR EXTENSION OF TIME [Fed.R.Civ.P. 6] WILLIAM H. ORRICK, District Judge. WHEREAS, Counsel of Record Robert C. Weems requires additional time to draft a reply to Defendant's cross motion for summary judgment motion; and WHEREAS, an optional reply is due on September 13, 2014, and the analysis required for briefing is taking longer than anticipated despite diligent efforts by the parties, an additional 14 days is required due to limited support staff familiar with the ca
More

STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

[Fed.R.Civ.P. 6]

WILLIAM H. ORRICK, District Judge.

WHEREAS, Counsel of Record Robert C. Weems requires additional time to draft a reply to Defendant's cross motion for summary judgment motion; and

WHEREAS, an optional reply is due on September 13, 2014, and the analysis required for briefing is taking longer than anticipated despite diligent efforts by the parties, an additional 14 days is required due to limited support staff familiar with the case, and is not requested for an improper purpose. See, FRCP 11; Unioil, Inc. v. E.F. Hutton & Co., 809 F.2d 548, 558 (9th Cir.1986).

NOW, WHEREFORE, the Parties agree good cause exists for and, subject to the Court's approval, stipulate to a fourteen (14) days extension of all deadlines in this action. The revised due date for the filing of the reply to Defendant's cross motion for summary judgment is October 28, 2014. This is the parties' second request for additional time.

SO STIPULATED AND AGREED.

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