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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?