ORDER ON STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR PLAINTIFFS TO RESPOND TO CAYMAN DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO ENFORCE THE STIPULATION FOR SETTLEMENT

CARL W. HOFFMAN, Magistrate Judge.

Pursuant to LR IA 6-1, Remark Holdings, Inc.; Kankan Limited; China Branding Group Limited (In Official Liquidation), an exempted Cayman Islands company acting by and through its joint official liquidators ("CBG"); and the Joint Official Liquidators, with no personal liability, Hugh Dickson of Grant Thornton Specialist Services (Cayman) Ltd, and David Bennett of Grant Thornton Recovery and Reorganisation Ltd (the "JOLs," and together with CBG, the "Cayman Defendants") hereby stipulate to the extension of Plaintiffs' time to respond to the Cayman Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Enforce the Stipulation for Settlement to April 15, 2019. In support of this stipulation, the undersigned parties state as follows:,

1. The Cayman Defendants filed a ten page opposition to Plaintiffs' motion to enforce on April 1, 2019 (see ECF No. 67). The opposition raises various issues regarding the enforceability of the stipulation for settlement and comes at a time when Plaintiffs' counsel was overseas for a week and is simultaneously working to amend their complaint pursuant to the Court's Order (ECF No. 66).,

2. The additional time is not sought for purposes of delay, but, instead, is necessary for Plaintiffs and undersigned counsel to respond adequately to the opposition to the motion to enforce.,

3. This is the parties' first request for an extension.

The Court, having considered the above stipulation of the parties, and good cause appearing, finds as follows:

1. The Cayman Defendants filed a ten page opposition to Plaintiffs' motion to enforce on April 1, 2019 (see ECF No. 67). The opposition raises several new issues to brief regarding the enforceability of the stipulation for settlement and comes at a time when the Plaintiffs are simultaneously working to amend their complaint pursuant to the Court's Order (ECF No. 66).

2. The additional time is not sought for purposes of delay, but, instead, is necessary for Plaintiffs and undersigned counsel to respond adequately to the opposition to the motion to enforce.

3. This is the parties' first request for an extension.

IT IS ORDERED THAT Remark Holdings, Inc. and KanKan Limited shall have until April 15, 2019 to file their reply in support of their motion to enforce.

IT IS SO ORDERED.