Johnson v. Powers et al

Filing 41

ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 9/27/17 ORDERING that Defendants' MOTION for an Extension of time 40 is DENIED; The court reiterates that defendants are required to participate in the VDRP process with plaintiff. ECF No. 38 . (Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

SCOTT JOHNSON,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

No. 2:15-cv-00245-WBS-AC

v.

ORDER

STANLEY O POWERS and SANDRA
KAYE POWERS,
Defendants.

16
17
18

This matter is before the court on defendants’ motion for a 180 day extension of time to

19

respond to plaintiff’s complaint on the grounds that defendants have not been served. ECF No.

20

40. The court addressed the issue of service in its July 31, 2017 order, and found that defendants

21

have been properly served by publication pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §

22

415.50. ECF No. 38 at 1. In that same order, the court stayed this case and ordered the parties to

23

participate in the Voluntary Dispute Resolution Program (“VDRP”).
The issuance of an extension of time is within the sound discretion of the court. Local

24
25

Civil Rule 144(c). This case is already stayed pending further order of the court, and thus

26

////

27

////

28

////
1

1

defendants’ motion for an extension of time, ECF No. 40, is DENIED. The court reiterates that

2

defendants are required to participate in the VDRP process with plaintiff. ECF No. 38.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4

DATED: September 27, 2017

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2