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)

Download PDF
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?