Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Mitchell v. Berryhill, 3:18-cv-02004-SK. (2018)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20181002g53 Visitors: 16
Filed: Sep. 28, 2018
Latest Update: Sep. 28, 2018
Summary: STIPULATION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME OF 30 DAYS FOR DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SALLIE KIM , Magistrate Judge . IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and between the parties, through their respective counsel of record, that Defendant shall have an extension of time of an additional 30 days to respond to Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. This is the first continuance sought by Defendant and in this case. The current due date is September 28, 2018. The new due
More

STIPULATION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME OF 30 DAYS FOR DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and between the parties, through their respective counsel of record, that Defendant shall have an extension of time of an additional 30 days to respond to Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. This is the first continuance sought by Defendant and in this case. The current due date is September 28, 2018. The new due date will be October 29, 2018.

There is good cause for this request. Since the filing of Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, Defendant's counsel has been addressing her full workload of district court cases and other matters. In addition, new matters that were not previously anticipated, had arisen in the last two weeks and have created some crowding of the briefing schedule around the due date of this case and in the next month, along with Defendant's counsel other cases. Thus, Defendant is respectfully requesting additional time up to and including October 29, 2018, to fully review the record and research the issues presented by Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in this case This request is made in good faith with no intention to unduly delay the proceedings. Defendant apologizes for the delay and any inconvenience caused by the delay.

The parties further stipulate that the Court's Scheduling Order shall be modified accordingly.

ORDER

APPROVED AND 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