Thomas v. Comcast Holdings Corporation

Filing 11

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 12/22/14. The time for defendant to respond to the complaint is extended to 12/22/14. (Manzer, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6

MICHAEL J. STORTZ (SBN 139386)
[e-mail]
MATTHEW J. ADLER (SBN 273147)
[e-mail]
DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
50 Fremont Street, 20th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105-2235
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
Attorneys for Defendant
COMCAST HOLDINGS CORPORATION

7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

TREVOR THOMAS,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

Case No. 2:14-cv-02428-TLN-DAD
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO
FURTHER EXTEND TIME FOR
DEFENDANT TO RESPOND TO
COMPLAINT

COMCAST HOLDINGS
CORPORATION; and DOES 1-10,
inclusive,

15
16

Defendants.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
D RINKER B IDDLE &
R EATH LLP
ATTO RNEY S AT LAW
SAN FRA NCI S CO

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO
FURTHER EXTEND TIME FOR DEFENDANT TO
RESPOND TO COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 2:14-CV-02428-TLN-DAD

1

WHEREAS, Plaintiff Trevor Thomas (Plaintiff) filed a Complaint on October 16, 2014;

2

WHEREAS, Plaintiff served the Complaint on Defendant Comcast Holdings Corporation

3

(Defendant) on October 27, 2014;

4
5

WHEREAS, the initial responsive pleading deadline for Defendant was November 17,
2014;
WHEREAS, pursuant to Local Rule 144(a), the parties agreed to extend Defendant’s

6
7

responsive pleading deadline by twenty-eight (28) days, as set forth in a stipulation filed on

8

November 14, 2014 (D.E. 6);

9
10

WHEREAS, the current responsive pleading deadline for Defendant is December 15,
2014;

11

WHEREAS, Defendant is presently reviewing the Complaint and investigating Plaintiff’s

12

allegations, and requires an additional week to complete its investigation and prepare its response

13

to the Complaint;

14
15
16
17
18

WHEREAS, the parties through counsel have met and conferred and reached agreement to
further extend Defendant’s responsive pleading deadline by seven (7) days;
WHEREAS, the proposed extension set forth herein will not impact any further
scheduling in this action;
THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by the parties through their respective

19

counsel that the deadline for Defendant to respond to the Complaint is continued to and including

20

December 22, 2014.

21

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
D RINKER B IDDLE &
R EATH LLP
ATTO RNEY S AT LAW
SAN FRA NCI S CO

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO FURTHER EXTEND
TIME FOR DEFENDANT TO RESPOND TO
COMPLAINT

-1-

CASE NO. 2:14-CV-02428-TLN-DAD

1

Dated: December 12, 2014

LEMBERG LAW, LLC

2
3

By: /s/ Trinette G. Kent (authorized 12.12.14)
Trinette G. Kent

4

Attorneys for Plaintiff
TREVOR THOMAS

5
6
7

Dated: December 12, 2014

DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP

8
By: /s Michael J. Stortz
Michael J. Stortz
Matthew J. Adler

9
10

Attorneys for Defendant
COMCAST HOLDINGS CORPORATION

11
12
13

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15

Dated: December 23, 2014

16
17
Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
D RINKER B IDDLE &
R EATH LLP
ATTO RNEY S AT LAW
SAN FRA NCI S CO

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO FURTHER EXTEND
TIME FOR DEFENDANT TO RESPOND TO
COMPLAINT

-2-

CASE NO. 2:14-CV-02428-TLN-DAD