GSF Nut Company, LLC v. Hong Kong Bin Guo International Trading, Limited, et al
Filing
34
STIPULATION and ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT HEBEI AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE A RESPONSIVE PLEADING TO PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT; (30) thirty-day extension, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 8/3/2017. (Lafata, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
MICHAEL C. WEED (SBN 199675)
mweed@orrick.com
ERIC R. OLAH (SBN 295513)
olah@orrick.com
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
400 Capitol Mall, Suite 3000
Sacramento, CA 95814-4497
Telephone:
+1 916 447 9200
Facsimile:
+1 916 329 4900
Attorneys for Defendant
HEBEI YANG YUAN ZHI HUI YIN PIN GU FEN
YOU XIAN GONG SI
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
GSF NUT COMPANY, LLC, a California
limited liability company,
13
15
16
17
STIPULATION AND ORDER
GRANTING DEFENDANT HEBEI AN
EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE A
RESPONSIVE PLEADING TO
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
Plaintiff,
14
Case No. 1:16-cv-00501-LJO-MJS
v.
HONG KONG BIN GUO INTERNATIONAL
TRADING LIMITED, a Chinese corporation,
HEBEI YANG YUAN ZHI HUI YIN PIN GU
FEN YOU XIAN GONG SI, a Chinese
corporation, and DOES 1 to 50, (inclusively),
18
Defendants.
19
STIPULATION
20
WHEREAS, Defendant Hebei Yang Yuan Zhi Hui Yin Pin Gu Fen You Xian Gong Si
21
22
(“Hebei”) was served with Plaintiff GSF Nut Company, LLC’s (“GSF”) Complaint (ECF No. 1)
23
and the Court Summons (ECF No. 3) on July 19, 2017;
WHEREAS, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(a)(1), Hebei must file a responsive
24
25
pleading to GSF’s Complaint no later than August 9, 2017;
WHEREAS, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b) authorizes the Court to extend time for
26
27
good cause if the extension is requested before the original deadline;
28
///
OHSUSA:767203463.1
STIPULATION AND ORDER GRANTING AN
EXTENSION OF TIME
(CASE NO. 1:16-CV-00501-LJO-MJS)
1
2
WHEREAS, Hebei, a Chinese corporation, needs additional time to investigate the
allegations in the Complaint and draft a responsive pleading to GSF’s Complaint;
3
4
WHEREAS, Hebei and GSF shall file this Stipulation and [Proposed] Order with the
Court before August 10, 2017;
5
WHEREAS, Hebei does not waive any defenses under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
6
12(b) by entering into and filing this Stipulation and [Proposed] Order, including but not limited
7
to defenses asserting that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over Hebei or that Hebei failed to
8
receive sufficient service of process;
9
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between GSF and Hebei that Hebei shall be
10
granted a thirty-day extension of time to file a responsive pleading to GSF’s Complaint, such that
11
any responsive pleading to the Complaint is due no later than September 8, 2017.
12
Dated: August 2, 2017
13
MICHAEL C. WEED
ERIC R. OLAH
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
14
15
By:
16
17
/s/ Eric R. Olah
ERIC R. OLAH
Attorneys for Defendant
HEBEI YANG YUAN ZHI HUI YIN PIN
GU FEN YOU XIAN GONG SI
18
19
Dated: August 2, 2017
20
MICHAEL A. DIAS
SARAH M. HACKER
Dias Law Firm, Inc.
21
22
By:
23
24
/s/ Sarah M. Hacker
(as authorized on August 2, 2017)
SARAH M. HACKER
Attorneys for Plaintiff
GSF NUT COMPANY, LLC
25
26
///
27
///
28
///
OHSUSA:767203463.1
-2-
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
GRANTING AN EXTENSION OF TIME
(CASE NO. 1:16-CV-00501-LJO-MJS)
ORDER
1
2
3
4
5
Pursuant to the foregoing stipulation between Plaintiff GSF Nut Company,
LLC(“GSF”) and Defendant Hebei Yang Yuan Zhi Hui Yin Pin Gu Fen You Xian
Gong Si (“Hebei”), and upon a finding of good cause, Hebei is HEREBY GRANTED
6
7
8
a thirty-day extension of time to and through September 8, 2017, to file a responsive
pleading to GSF’s Complaint in Case No. 1:16-cv-00501-LJO-MJS.
9
10
IT IS SO ORDERED.
11
12
Dated:
August 3, 2017
/s/
Michael J. Seng
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
OHSUSA:767203463.1
-3-
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
GRANTING AN EXTENSION OF TIME
(CASE NO. 1:16-CV-00501-LJO-MJS)
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?