Filed: Aug. 22, 2017
Latest Update: Aug. 22, 2017
Summary: ORDER JENNIFER A. DORSEY , District Judge . STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION (DKT. 10) (Second Request) Plaintiffs VISHAL CHAMARIA, VIVEK CHAMARIA, PUJA CHARMARIA, GAURI CHAMARIA, P & V, LLC, and CHIP SHOP, LLC (collectively, the "Plaintiffs"), by and through their attorney of record ALEXIS L. BROWN, ESQ. of the law office of ALEXIS BROWN LAW, CHTD., and Defendant TONY M. DIAB, Defendant in Proper Person, hereby enter in
Summary: ORDER JENNIFER A. DORSEY , District Judge . STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION (DKT. 10) (Second Request) Plaintiffs VISHAL CHAMARIA, VIVEK CHAMARIA, PUJA CHARMARIA, GAURI CHAMARIA, P & V, LLC, and CHIP SHOP, LLC (collectively, the "Plaintiffs"), by and through their attorney of record ALEXIS L. BROWN, ESQ. of the law office of ALEXIS BROWN LAW, CHTD., and Defendant TONY M. DIAB, Defendant in Proper Person, hereby enter int..
More
ORDER
JENNIFER A. DORSEY, District Judge.
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION (DKT. 10) (Second Request)
Plaintiffs VISHAL CHAMARIA, VIVEK CHAMARIA, PUJA CHARMARIA, GAURI CHAMARIA, P & V, LLC, and CHIP SHOP, LLC (collectively, the "Plaintiffs"), by and through their attorney of record ALEXIS L. BROWN, ESQ. of the law office of ALEXIS BROWN LAW, CHTD., and Defendant TONY M. DIAB, Defendant in Proper Person, hereby enter into this Stipulation to Extend Time to Respond to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction (Dkt. 10) (Second Request) pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 and L.R. IA 6-1 as follows:
WHEREAS on July 31, 2017, Mr. Diab filed Defendant Tony M. Diab's Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction; Memorandum of Points and Authorities Thereon (the "Diab Motion to Dismiss") (Dkt. 10).
WHEREAS pursuant to the Court's Order Granting [27] Stipulation to Extend Time re [10] MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (Dkt. 28), Plaintiffs' response to the Diab Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 10) is currently due on August 22, 2017.
WHEREAS shortly before Plaintiffs and Diab agreed to the first extension of time to respond to the Diab Motion to Dismiss to August 22, 2017, the California Automobile Case referred to in Plaintiffs' Verified Complaint reinstated and has required Mr. Diab's and Plaintiffs' attention.
WHEREAS as part of the discussions regarding the California Automobile Case, Mr. Diab and Plaintiffs have also been engaging in settlement discussions regarding this case.
WHEREAS in light of the foregoing, Defendant Diab agrees to allow Plaintiffs this second extension until August 30, 2017 to respond to the Diab Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 10).
WHEREAS Mr. Diab has requested an extension of time through September 8, 2017 to file his Reply in support of the Diab Motion to Dismiss due to a scheduling conflict from August 31, 2017 through September 4, 2017.
Based on the foregoing,
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED that good cause exists to allow Plaintiffs until August 30, 2017 to respond to the Diab Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 10).
IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED that good cause exists to allow Mr. Diab until September 8, 2017 to file a reply in support of the Diab Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 10).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
