Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Finn v. Sullivan, 16-cv-05285-WHO. (2016)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20161021a87 Visitors: 16
Filed: Oct. 20, 2016
Latest Update: Oct. 20, 2016
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DEADLINES FOR OPPOSITION AND REPLY TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE [DKT. 12] WILLIAM H. ORRICK , District Judge . Plaintiff Stephen A. Finn ("Finn") and Defendants Sullivan Vineyard Corporation and Sullivan Vineyard Partnership ("Defendants"), in accord with Rules 6-1 and 6-2 of the Local Rules for the United District Court for the Northern District of California, by and through their counsel of record, stipulate and agree as follows: WHEREAS, Defendants hav
More

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DEADLINES FOR OPPOSITION AND REPLY TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE [DKT. 12]

Plaintiff Stephen A. Finn ("Finn") and Defendants Sullivan Vineyard Corporation and Sullivan Vineyard Partnership ("Defendants"), in accord with Rules 6-1 and 6-2 of the Local Rules for the United District Court for the Northern District of California, by and through their counsel of record, stipulate and agree as follows:

WHEREAS, Defendants have filed a motion to stay or strike Plaintiff's complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) ("Motion to Strike") [Dkt. 12];

WHEREAS, the Court has reset the hearing regarding Defendants' Motion to Strike from November 23, 2016 to November 30, 2016 [Dkt. 16];

WHEREAS, pursuant to Local Rule 7-3(a), Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Strike filed on October 14, 2016 [Dkt. 12] is currently due on October 28, 2016;

WHEREAS, pursuant to Local Rule 7-3(c), Defendants' Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition is currently due on November 4, 2016;

WHEREAS, Plaintiff and Defendants (collectively, the "Parties") seek additional time to fully brief the issues presented in the Motion to Strike.

NOW THEREFORE, the Parties stipulate and request the Court enter an order as follows:

1. Plaintiff's Opposition to the Motion to Strike will be due on November 7, 2016; and

2. Defendants' Reply to the Opposition to the Motion to Strike will due on November 18, 2016.

ATTESTATION CLAUSE

I attest under penalty of perjury that the concurrence in filing of this document has been obtained from its signatories.

By: /s/Andrew D. Lanphere

ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that the stipulation of the parties is granted, as modified below:

1. Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Strike [Dkt. 12] shall be due on November 1, 2016; and

2. Defendants' Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Strike shall be due on November 15, 2016.

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