Filed: Sep. 11, 2017
Latest Update: Sep. 11, 2017
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION (DKT. 10) (Third Request) JENNIFER A. DORSEY , District Judge . 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 thi
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION (DKT. 10) (Third Request) JENNIFER A. DORSEY , District Judge . 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..
More
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION (DKT. 10)
(Third Request)
JENNIFER A. DORSEY, District Judge.
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) (Third 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 Court orders, Plaintiffs' response to the Diab Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 10) was due August 30, 2017. Dkt. 28, 32.
WHEREAS the Parties previously agreed to extend the time for Plaintiffs to respond to the Diab Motion to Dismiss to allow for meaningful discussion of settlement of all claims. Dkt. 28, 32.
WHEREAS the Parties informally agreed to extend the Plaintiffs' deadline to respond to the Diab Motion to Dismiss to September 2, 2017 and then to September 8, 2017 to allow for such ongoing settlement discussions.
WHEREAS settlement discussions have unfortunately stalled since September 6, 2017, requiring the parties to proceed with this case.
WHEREAS in light of the foregoing, the Parties stipulate and agree that Plaintiffs shall have this third extension until September 8, 2017 to respond to the Diab Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 10).
WHEREAS the Parties agree to allow Mr. Diab a requested one business day extension of time through September 18, 2017 to file his reply in support of the Diab Motion to Dismiss.
Based on the foregoing,
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED that good cause exists to allow Plaintiffs until September 8, 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 18, 2017 to file a reply in support of the Diab Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 10).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
