Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

O'Rourke v. Comcast Corporation, 5:14-cv-04637-EJD. (2014)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20141217a34 Visitors: 10
Filed: Dec. 16, 2014
Latest Update: Dec. 16, 2014
Summary: STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME FOR DEFENDANTS TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT EDWARD J. DAVILA, District Judge. WHEREAS, on October 16, 2014, Plaintiff Conal O'Rourke ("Plaintiff") filed a Complaint against Defendants Comcast Corporation ("Comcast"), Lawrence Salva ("Salva"), and DOES 1-20 ("Does") (collectively, "Defendants"); WHEREAS, Defendants were served on different days; WHEREAS, Plaintiff and Defendants stipulated, and the Court ordered, to extend the deadline for Comcast and Salva to answer, mo
More

STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME FOR DEFENDANTS TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT

EDWARD J. DAVILA, District Judge.

WHEREAS, on October 16, 2014, Plaintiff Conal O'Rourke ("Plaintiff") filed a Complaint against Defendants Comcast Corporation ("Comcast"), Lawrence Salva ("Salva"), and DOES 1-20 ("Does") (collectively, "Defendants");

WHEREAS, Defendants were served on different days;

WHEREAS, Plaintiff and Defendants stipulated, and the Court ordered, to extend the deadline for Comcast and Salva to answer, move, or otherwise respond to Plaintiff's Complaint up to and including December 15, 2014; and

WHEREAS, Defendant Salva contends that this Court lacks personal jurisdiction and that the filing of this stipulation does not in any way amount to consent to jurisdiction or waive his right to object to jurisdiction in this Court;

WHEREAS, Plaintiff and Defendants are working toward an early settlement conference with a magistrate judge;

NOW THEREFORE, Plaintiff and Defendants HEREBY STIPULATE AND AGREE AS FOLLOWS:

1. The deadline for Defendants to answer, move, or otherwise respond to Plaintiff's Complaint shall be extended by 30 days, up to and including January 14, 2015.

2. This stipulation will not alter the date of any event or any deadline already fixed by Court order.

3. The filing of this stipulation does not in any way amount to Defendant Salva's consent to jurisdiction or waive his right to object to jurisdiction in this Court.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

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