Spencer v. American Express Company, 2:17-cv-02744-APG-CWH. (2018)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20180221b79
Visitors: 6
Filed: Jan. 09, 2018
Latest Update: Jan. 09, 2018
Summary: JOINT STIPULATION FURTHER EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT (Second Request) [L.R. IA 6-1] CARL W. HOFFMAN , Magistrate Judge . This is the second stipulation for extension of time for defendant American Express Company ("American Express") to respond to plaintiff Kirby Spencer's ("Plaintiff") Complaint. American Express was served on November 15, 2017. Defendant's response to the Complaint currently is due on January 8, 2017 having been extended once previously. ( See ECF No. 6) Pl
Summary: JOINT STIPULATION FURTHER EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT (Second Request) [L.R. IA 6-1] CARL W. HOFFMAN , Magistrate Judge . This is the second stipulation for extension of time for defendant American Express Company ("American Express") to respond to plaintiff Kirby Spencer's ("Plaintiff") Complaint. American Express was served on November 15, 2017. Defendant's response to the Complaint currently is due on January 8, 2017 having been extended once previously. ( See ECF No. 6) Pla..
More
JOINT STIPULATION FURTHER EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT
(Second Request)
[L.R. IA 6-1]
CARL W. HOFFMAN, Magistrate Judge.
This is the second stipulation for extension of time for defendant American Express Company ("American Express") to respond to plaintiff Kirby Spencer's ("Plaintiff") Complaint. American Express was served on November 15, 2017. Defendant's response to the Complaint currently is due on January 8, 2017 having been extended once previously. (See ECF No. 6) Plaintiff and American Express, through their respective counsel of record, have agreed to further extend the deadline for American Express to respond to the Complaint to and including January 23, 2018. Good cause for this extension exists because American Express requires additional time to investigate the allegations of the Complaint, and because all parties are actively considering resolution of this litigation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
