Acosta v. Moua, et al.

Filing 9

STIPULATION and ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR DEFENDANT WINDMILL STATION TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT. DEADLINE FOR DEFENDANT TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT IS JUNE 13, 2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 5/23/2017. (Hernandez, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
Kristina M. Launey (SBN 221335)
[e-mail]
400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2350
Sacramento, California 95814
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Myra B. Villamor (SBN 232912)
[e-mail]
2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
Los Angeles, California 90067-3021
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendant
WINDMILL STATION LLC

10
11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

12

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

13
14

JOSE ACOSTA,

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN CHONGTOUA MOUA dba
TOKYO STEAK HOUSE; WINDMILL
STATION LLC,
Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-00480-DAD-SAB
STIPULATION AND ORDER
EXTENDING TIME FOR
DEFENDANT WINDMILL
STATION LLC TO RESPOND TO
COMPLAINT

1

Pursuant to the provisions of Local Rule 144(a), Plaintiff Jose Acosta (“Plaintiff”)

2

and Defendant Windmill Station LLC (“Defendant”), by and through their respective

3

counsel, hereby stipulate that Defendant may have an 18-day extension of time in which

4

to respond to Plaintiff's Complaint. Pursuant to this extension, a response by Defendant

5

shall be due on or before June 13, 2017.

6
7

The parties previously entered into an initial stipulation extending Defendant’s
deadline to respond to the Complaint by 28 days.

8

This stipulation will not affect or alter any deadline previously set by Court order.

9

The reason for the present extension is that the parties are in the midst of

10

negotiating a resolution of this matter.

11
12
13

Pursuant to Local Rule 131(e), counsel for Plaintiff has authorized submission of
this document on his behalf.

14
15

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

16
17

DATED: May 23, 2017

SEYFARTH SHAW LLP

18
19

By: /s/ Myra B. Villamor
Myra B. Villamor
Attorneys for Defendants

20
21
22

DATED: May 23, 2017

MISSION LAW FIRM

23
24

By: /s/ Zachary M. Best
Zachary M. Best
Attorneys for Plaintiff

25
26
27
28
1

1

ORDER

2
3

Based on the foregoing stipulation, IT IS SO ORDERED that the following deadline

4

applies:

5
6

June 13, 2017

Deadline for Defendant to Respond to Complaint

7
8
9
10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

May 23, 2017
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2