Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Brown v. Tubbs, 18-CV-06893-LHK. (2019)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20190628a63 Visitors: 18
Filed: Jun. 27, 2019
Latest Update: Jun. 27, 2019
Summary: ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE DISPOSITIVE MOTION Re: Dkt. No. 29 LUCY H. KOH , District Judge . Plaintiff, a California state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. 1983. On March 20, 2019, the court directed defendants to file a dispositive motion or notice that such motion is unwarranted. Dkt. No. 5. Defendants M. Douglas, C. Case, and A. Deere waived their right to file a dispositive motion and requested a jury trial. Dkt. No
More

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE DISPOSITIVE MOTION

Re: Dkt. No. 29

Plaintiff, a California state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 20, 2019, the court directed defendants to file a dispositive motion or notice that such motion is unwarranted. Dkt. No. 5. Defendants M. Douglas, C. Case, and A. Deere waived their right to file a dispositive motion and requested a jury trial. Dkt. No. 38.

Counsel for defendants subsequently moved for an extension of time until August 20, 2019, to file a dispositive motion.1 Dkt. No. 39. Counsel urges this extension is necessary to properly investigate plaintiffs claims before determining whether to file a dispositive motion. Id.

Having read and considered the motion for an extension of time, and for good cause appearing, the motion is GRANTED. Therefore, defendants M. Stouffer, G. Abdullah, J. Robertson, B. Tubbs, A. Escobar, C. Hamilton, and B. Chaucer shall file a dispositive motion on or before August 20, 2019. Plaintiff's opposition to the motion shall be filed no later than twenty-eight (28) days from the date the motion is filed. Defendants M. Stouffer, G. Abdullah, J. Robertson. B. Tubbs, A. Escobar, C. Hamilton, and B. Chaucer shall file a reply no later than fourteen (14) clays after the opposition is filed.

Defendants are advised that no further extension of time to file a dispositive motion shall be granted.

This order terminates docket number 39.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. Counsel appears to represent all defendants. Dkt. No. 39. However, in light of the waiver filed by defendants M. Douglas, C. Case, and A. Deere, it appears the extension is requested on behalf of defendants M. Stouffer, G. Abdullah, J. Robertson, B. Tubbs, A. Escobar, C. Hamilton, and B. Chaucer. Compare Dkt. No. 38 with Dkt. No. 39.
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