Brown v. Charter Communications, Inc.

Filing 8

STIPULATION and ORDER 7 GRANTING Extension of Time, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 7/13/2017. (Hall, S)

1 HELEN B. KIM, CSB 138209
[e-mail]
2
ROWENA SANTOS, CSB 210185
3 [e-mail]
THOMPSON COBURN LLP
4
2029 Century Park East, Suite 1900
5 Los Angeles, California 90067
Tel: [phone] / Fax: [phone]
6
7 Attorneys for Defendant,
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
8
9
10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12
13 TERI BROWN, individually and on
behalf of all other similarly situated,
14
Plaintiff,
15
v.
16
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS,
17 INC. d/b/a SPECTRUM, and JOHN
DOES 1-10,
18
Defendants.
19

CASE NO. 1:17-CV-00670-LJO-JLT
(Doc. 7)

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

This Stipulation is entered into by and between the parties, plaintiff, TERI
BROWN (“Plaintiff”), and defendant, CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
d/b/a SPECTRUM (“Defendant”), through their respective undersigned counsel
based upon the following facts:
1.

On July 3, 2017, Plaintiff served her Complaint filed in the United

States District Court for the Eastern District of California, and the deadline by which
Defendant is to respond to the Complaint is July 24, 2017;
2. Plaintiff and Defendant (collectively “Parties”) agreed to extend the
STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO INITIAL COMPLAINT
BY NOT MORE THAN 28 DAYS (L.R. 144(a)); AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

1 time in which Defendant is to answer, move, or otherwise plead to the Complaint
2 herein from July 24, 2017 to August 21, 2017;
3

3.

No other extensions have been requested or ordered.

4

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the Parties, through their

5 respective undersigned counsel that Defendant shall have to and including August
6 21, 2017 in which to answer, move, or otherwise plead to the Complaint herein.
7 DATED: July 13, 2017
8

THOMPSON COBURN LLP
By:

9
10

/s/ Rowena Santos
Helen B. Kim
Rowena Santos
Attorneys for Defendant,
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC.

11
12 DATED: July 12, 2017
13

LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
By:

15

/s/ Todd M. Friedman
Todd M. Friedman
Adrian R. Bacon
Meghan E. George

16

Attorneys for Plaintiff

14

17

[PROPOSED] ORDER

18

As noted in Local Rule 144(a)1, no order of the Court is required related to “an initial

19 stipulation extending time for no more than twenty-eight (28) days to respond to a complaint.”
20 However, because the parties submitted the proposed order with their stipulation (Doc. 7), the
21 Court GRANTS that request.
22
23 IT IS SO ORDERED.
24

Dated:

July 13, 2017

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

25
26
27
28

1

Counsel SHALL familiarize themselves with the Court’s Local Rules.

2
STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO INITIAL COMPLAINT
BY NOT MORE THAN 28 DAYS (L.R. 144(a)); AND [PROPOSED] ORDER