Doe v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, 3:18-cv-04622-YGR. (2018)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20181119843
Visitors: 3
Filed: Nov. 16, 2018
Latest Update: Nov. 16, 2018
Summary: STIPULATION FOR ADDITIONAL TIME FOR DEFENDANT TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS , District Judge . STIPULATION Pursuant to Rule 6-1(a) of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court for the Northern District of California ("Local Rules"), Plaintiff John Doe ("Plaintiff") and Defendant Metropolitan Life Insurance Company ("Defendant"), by and through their respective counsel, hereby stipulate to a further extension of time within which Defendan
Summary: STIPULATION FOR ADDITIONAL TIME FOR DEFENDANT TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS , District Judge . STIPULATION Pursuant to Rule 6-1(a) of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court for the Northern District of California ("Local Rules"), Plaintiff John Doe ("Plaintiff") and Defendant Metropolitan Life Insurance Company ("Defendant"), by and through their respective counsel, hereby stipulate to a further extension of time within which Defendant..
More
STIPULATION FOR ADDITIONAL TIME FOR DEFENDANT TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS, District Judge.
STIPULATION
Pursuant to Rule 6-1(a) of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court for the Northern District of California ("Local Rules"), Plaintiff John Doe ("Plaintiff") and Defendant Metropolitan Life Insurance Company ("Defendant"), by and through their respective counsel, hereby stipulate to a further extension of time within which Defendant may respond to the Complaint filed by Plaintiff on July 31, 2018 and served on Defendant on September 25, 2018.
Specifically, Defendant shall have an additional six (6) days from the current response due date of November 15, 2018, in which to answer or otherwise respond, such that a pleading filed on or before November 21, 2018 shall be deemed timely. Good cause exists for this extension because Defendant has only recently retained counsel, and additional time is needed to gather all relevant documents and all matters previously reviewed and considered in connection with Plaintiff's disability claim (i.e., the "Administrative Record"), to formulate its interim litigation strategy and to prepare its actual responsive pleadings.
This extension will not alter the date of any event or any deadline already fixed by Court order.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
Source: Leagle
