Acosta v. Rodriguez et al

Filing 10

SECOND STIPULATION and ORDER for Extension of Time for All Defendants to Respond Within 28 Days. All Defendants must respond to Plaintiff's Complaint on or before October 12, 2017. Order signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 10/5/2017. (Timken, A)

4

MICHAEL L. SCHULTE - BAR NO. 182284
ATTORNEY AT LAW
6737 N Milburn, Suite 160
Fresno, California 93722
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]

5

Attorney for DEFENDANTS:

1
2
3

David Rodriguez, Arturo Rodriguez, Rosa L. Rodriguez, &
Leonor Sanchez Rodriguez

6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9
MICHAEL SCHULTE, ATTORNEY AT LAW
6737 N. Milburn, Suite 160
Fresno, CA 93722

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – FRESNO DIVISION

10
11

Case No. 1:17-cv-01017-DAD-SKO
JOSE ACOSTA, an Individual

12

Plaintiff,

13

vs.

14

DAVID RODRIGUEZ individually and dba
LA COSTENITA MEAT MARKET;
ARTURO RODRIGUEZ individually and
dba LA COSTENITA MEAT MARKET;
ROSA L. RODRIGUEZ; & LEONOR
SANCHEZ RODRIGUEZ

15
16
17
18

Defendants.

SECOND STIPULATION FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME FOR ALL
DEFENDANTS TO RESPOND
WITHIN 28 DAYS; ORDER
Latest Date of Service: 8/24/17
Latest Response Date: 9/14/17
1st Extended Response Date: 10/3/17
2nd Extended Response Date: 10/12/17
1st Scheduling Conf Date: 11/2/2017

19
20
21
22
23

Defendants David Rodriguez, Arturo Rodriguez, Rosa Rodriguez, and Leonor

24

Sanchez Rodriguez (the “Defendants”) and Plaintiff, Jose Acosta (the “Plaintiff”) hereby

25

stipulate by and through their respective counsel to extend the time for all Defendants to

26

respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint to and including October 12, 2017.

27
28

1. WHEREAS, Defendants Rosa Rodriguez and Leonor Sanchez Rodriguez were
allegedly served on 8/13/17, with a response due date of 9/5/17, and
-1________________________________________________________________________________

2nd STIPULATION EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT; ORDER

1
2
3
4

2. WHEREAS, Defendants David Rodriguez and Arturo Rodriguez were allegedly
served on 8/24/17, with a response due date of 9/14/17, and
3. WHEREAS, On 9/14/17, the Parties stipulated to extend all Defendants time to
respond to October 3, 2017, and

5

4. WHEREAS, LR 144 allows for an extended response date of up to 28 days, and

6

5. WHEREAS, the full 28 days to respond would extend to October 12, 2017, and

7

6. WHEREAS, the Mandatory Scheduling Conference is set for 11/2/2017, and the

8
MICHAEL SCHULTE, ATTORNEY AT LAW
6737 N. Milburn, Suite 160
Fresno, CA 93722

9

Joint Statement would be due 7 days prior, and
7. WHEREAS, the Parties have been actively engaged in discussions about

10

resolution of the matters contained in Plaintiff’s Complaint, and wish to conserve

11

party and court resources, and believe that a full 28 day extension of time will

12

enable that to happen.

13

8. NOW THEREFORE, THE PARTIES AGREE AND STIPULATE pursuant to

14

L.R. 144(a) that all Defendants’ time to answer or otherwise respond to the

15

complaint, currently due on October 3, 2017, shall be extended to October 12,

16

2017, with Joint Statement due within 7 days of the currently scheduled

17

Mandatory Scheduling Conference.

18

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

19

DATED: October 3, 2017

MICHAEL SCHULTE, ATTORNEY

20
BY:

21
22
23
24

DATED: October 3, 2017

__/s/ Michael Schulte__________
Michael Schulte,
Attorney for Defendants

ZACHARY BEST, ATTORNEY
MISSION LAW FIRM, A.P.C.

25
26
27

BY:

__/s/ Zachary Best____________
Zachary Best,
Attorney for Plaintiff

28
-2________________________________________________________________________________

2nd STIPULATION EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT; ORDER

ORDER

1

By stipulation of the parties filed September 14, 2017, pursuant to Rule 144(a) of the

2
3
4
5
6
7
8

Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California,
Defendants David Rodriguez, Arturo Rodriguez, Rosa Rodriguez, and Leonor Sanchez
Rodriguez (the “Defendants”) were to respond to Plaintiff Jose Acosta’s complaint no later
than October 3, 2017.

MICHAEL SCHULTE, ATTORNEY AT LAW
6737 N. Milburn, Suite 160
Fresno, CA 93722

11
12
13
14
15
16
17

two days after Defendants’ responsive pleading deadline.
Although the Court may extend time to file a responsive pleading after the deadline
has expired because of “excusable neglect,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B), no such excusable
neglect has been articulated—much less shown—here. Notwithstanding this deficiency,
given the absence of bad faith or prejudice to Plaintiff (as evidenced by the parties’
agreement to the extension of time), and in view of the liberal construction of Fed. R. Civ.
6(b)(1) to effectuate the general purpose of seeing that cases are tried on the merits, see
Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1258–59 (9th Cir. 2010), the Court
GRANTS the parties’ stipulated request. The parties are cautioned that future post hoc
request for extensions of time will be viewed with disfavor.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that all Defendants must respond to Plaintiff’s

18
19
20

The parties filed the above “Second Stipulation for

Extension of Time for All Defendants to Respond Within 28 Days” on October 5, 2017—

9
10

(Doc. 8.)

Complaint on or before October 12, 2017.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

21
22
23
24

Dated:

October 5, 2017

/s/

Sheila K. Oberto

.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE
JUDGE

25
26
27
28
-3________________________________________________________________________________

2nd STIPULATION EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT; ORDER