Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Ross v. Octagon, Inc., 3:14-cv-04415 JST. (2014)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20141121b10 Visitors: 21
Filed: Nov. 20, 2014
Latest Update: Nov. 20, 2014
Summary: STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER ALTERING BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION JON S. TIGAR, District Judge. Plaintiff ANDREW D. ROSS ("Ross") and Defendant OCTAGON, INC. ("Octagon") (each individually a "Party" and jointly referred to as "the Parties"), by and though their respective counsel, hereby stipulate and agree as follows: WHEREAS on October 28, 2014 Defendant Octagon, Inc. filed its Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(B)(1)
More

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER ALTERING BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

JON S. TIGAR, District Judge.

Plaintiff ANDREW D. ROSS ("Ross") and Defendant OCTAGON, INC. ("Octagon") (each individually a "Party" and jointly referred to as "the Parties"), by and though their respective counsel, hereby stipulate and agree as follows:

WHEREAS on October 28, 2014 Defendant Octagon, Inc. filed its Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(B)(1) Or To Transfer Pursuant To 28 U.S.C. § 1404(A) (Motion to Dismiss") [Dkt. 8] which set the date for Plaintiff's opposition to the Motion to Dismiss on November 12, 2014,

WHEREAS on October 29, 2014, Plaintiff Ross filed a declination to proceed before Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler [Dkt. 12],

WHEREAS on October 30, 2014, Court Clerk Richard W. Wieking issued an Order [Dkt. 14] advising the parties that pursuant to the case's reassignment to Judge Jon S. Tigar, "All dates presently scheduled are vacated and motions should be re-noticed for hearing before the judge to whom the case has been reassigned. Briefing schedules, including ADR and other deadlines remain unchanged",

WHEREAS on November 13, 2014, Defendant Octagon, Inc. filed its Re-Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(B)(1) Or To Transfer Pursuant To 28 U.S.C. § 1404(A), for hearing on December 18, 2014 [Dkt. 16],

WHEREAS upon receipt of Defendant's re-notice of the Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff discovered that a clerical error had resulted in the original opposition date of November 12, 2014 being removed from the firm's litigation calendar, along with the previously vacated December 18, 2014 hearing date,

WHEREAS no Party shall be prejudiced by this stipulation,

IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED by the Parties that Plaintiff shall be granted an extension of time to file his opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff's opposition shall be filed on or before November 21, 2014. Defendant's reply in support of the Motion to Dismiss shall be filed on or before December 4, 2014..

ORDER

Having considered the Stipulation regarding the parties' agreement to allow an extension of time for Plaintiff Andrew D. Ross to file an opposition to Defendant Octagon, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(B)(1) Or To Transfer Pursuant To 28 U.S.C. § 1404(A), the Court hereby GRANTS the extension of time. Plaintiff shall file his opposition to the motion on or before November 21, 2014. Defendant shall file its reply in support of the motion on or before December 4, 2014.

IT IS 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