Washington v. Apria Healthcare Group, Inc.

Filing 10

ORDER on Second Stipulation to Extend Time to Respond to Initial Complaint. Defendant shall file its responsive pleading by no later than August 31, 2016. Order signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 8/11/2016. (Timken, A)

1

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
2 865 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2400
Los Angeles, CA 90017-2566
3 Telephone: [phone]
4 Fax: [phone]
5

Rochelle L. Wilcox (SBN 197790)
6 [e-mail]
7

Attorney for Defendant
Apria Healthcare Group, Inc.
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – FRESNO

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

MACARTHUR WASHINGTON, on
) Case No. 1:16-cv-00847-DAD-SKO
behalf of himself and all others similarly )
situated,
) SECOND STIPULATION AND
) ORDER TO EXTEND TIME TO
Plaintiff,
) RESPOND TO INITIAL
) COMPLAINT (L.R. 144)
vs.
)
)
APRIA HEALTHCARE GROUP, INC., )
and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and )
each of them
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

20
21

This Stipulation is entered by and between Plaintiff MacArthur Washington

22

(“Plaintiff”) and Defendant Apria Healthcare, Inc. (“Apria”) through their respective

23

counsel of record, with reference to the following facts:

24

1.

Plaintiff filed the Complaint in this action on June 17, 2016.

25

2.

Apria was served with the Complaint on June 29, 2016, making Apria’s

26

response to the Complaint originally due July 20, 2016.

27
28

1
STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME
DWT 30160147v2 0050033-001660

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
865 S. FIGUEROA ST, SUITE 2400
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017-2566
[phone]
Fax: [phone]

3.

1

Pursuant to Local Rule 144(a), Plaintiff agreed to extend the time for

2

Apria to respond to the Complaint by 21 days, up to and including August 10, 2016.

3

The parties filed a stipulation to that effect on July 19, 2016 (Dkt. 7).
4.

4

Since that time, the parties have been actively engaged in investigating

5

the facts and circumstances alleged in the Complaint and have exchanged

6

information relating to those allegations. The parties anticipate they will need

7

approximately three additional weeks to complete their investigation, at which point

8

Apria will be in an adequate position to respond to the Complaint.
5.

9

Accordingly, the parties stipulate and jointly ask the Court to extend the

10

time for Apria to respond to the Complaint by another 21 days, up to and including

11

August 31, 2016.
6.

12
13

All signatories listed below, and on whose behalf the filing is submitted,

concur in this filing’s content and have authorized this filing.
7.

14

This is the first request to the Court for an extension of time; as noted

15

above, the parties previously stipulated to a 21-day extension of time pursuant to

16

Local Rule 144(a), which did not require Court approval.

17

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED that

18

Defendant shall have an extension of time up to and including August 31, 2016, to

19

respond to the Complaint in this action.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

///
2
STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME
DWT 30160147v2 0050033-001660

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
865 S. FIGUEROA ST, SUITE 2400
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017-2566
[phone]
Fax: [phone]

1

DATED: August 11, 2016

2
3
4

LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
TODD M. FRIEDMAN
MEGHAN E. GEORGE
ADRIAN BACON
By: s/ Adrian Bacon *
Adrian Bacon
Attorneys for Plaintiff
MACARTHUR WASHINGTON

5
6
7

* (as authorized by email on 8/9/16)

8
9
10

DATED: August 11, 2016

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
ROCHELLE L. WILCOX

11
12

By: s/ Rochelle L. Wilcox
Rochelle L. Wilcox
Attorney for Defendant
APRIA HEALTHCARE, INC.

13
14
15
16

ORDER

17

Pursuant to the parties’ “Stipulation to Extend Time to Respond to Initial

18
19

Complaint by Not More than 28 Days” (Doc. 7), Defendant Apria Healthcare

20

Group’s (“Defendant”) response to Plaintiff MacArthur Washington’s (“Plaintiff”)

21

Complaint was due August 10, 2016, the same day on which the parties filed the

22

above “Second Stipulation to Extend Time to Response to Initial Complaint.” (Doc.

23

9.)

24

Requests for extension are governing by Rule 144 of the Local Rules of the

25

United States District Court, Eastern District of California (“Local Rules”). Local

26

Rule 144(d) explains that “[r]equests for Court-approved extensions brought on the

27

required filing date for the pleading or other document are looked upon with

28

disfavor.” However, given the parties’ representations regarding the status of their
3
STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME
DWT 30160147v2 0050033-001660

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
865 S. FIGUEROA ST, SUITE 2400
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017-2566
[phone]
Fax: [phone]

1

investigation of the allegations in the Complaint, the Court GRANTS the parties’

2

stipulated second request for extension of time.
It is hereby ORDERED that Defendant shall file its responsive pleading by no

3
4

later than August 31, 2016.

5
6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

August 11, 2016

/s/

Sheila K. Oberto

.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4
STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME
DWT 30160147v2 0050033-001660

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
865 S. FIGUEROA ST, SUITE 2400
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017-2566
[phone]
Fax: [phone]