Lawson v. California Service Company et al

Filing 9

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 9/17/2016 ORDERING that the time for Defendant to respond to Plaintiff's complaint is EXTENDED through and including 9/26/2016. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

JEFFREY S. BOSLEY (CA State Bar No. 167629)
[e-mail]
JULIA BRODSKY (CA State Bar No. 266177)
[e-mail]
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
505 Montgomery Street, Suite 800
San Francisco, California 94111
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
Attorneys for Defendant
CORPORATION SERVICE COMPANY (erroneously
sued as “California Service Company”)

8
9
10
11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

12

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

13
14
15

KASHONDA LAWSON,

16
17
18
19

Case No. 2:16-CV-00990-MCE-EFB
Plaintiff,

vs.
CALIFORNIA SERVICE COMPANY, PAUL
VITELLI, SHERRI GEBHART, SUSIE
HUDSON, and DOES 1 THROUGH 50,

20

Defendants.

21

STIPULATION AND ORDER
EXTENDING TIME TO FILE AND
SERVE RESPONSIVE PLEADING
Assigned to the Hon. Morrison C. England,
Jr.
Action Filed: May 10, 2016

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO FILE AND SERVE RESPONSIVE PLEADING
DWT 30225145v1 0103970-000001

RECITALS

1

WHEREAS, on or about May 10, 2016, Plaintiff KASHONDA LAWSON (“Plaintiff”)

2
3

filed a Complaint against Defendant CORPORATION SERVICE COMPANY (erroneously sued as

4

“California Service Company”) (“Defendant”) in the above-referenced matter;

5

WHEREAS, Defendant was served with the Complaint on or about August 8, 2016;

6

WHEREAS, on August 23, 2016, prior to Defendant’s deadline to file a responsive

7

pleading, Plaintiff granted Defendant a 14-day extension to file and serve Defendant’s responsive

8

pleading, until September 12, 2016;
WHEREAS, Plaintiff and Defendant agree that they will not be prejudiced by an additional

9
10

extension of time for Defendant to file its responsive pleading;
WHEREAS, the Court has not previously granted any extensions of time to respond in this

11
12

matter; and
WHEREAS, the parties agree that the time for Defendant to respond to the Complaint

13
14

should be extended through and including September 26, 2016.

15

///

16

///

17

///

18

///

19

///

20

///

21

///

22

///

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
1
STIPULATION AND ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO FILE AND SERVE RESPONSIVE PLEADING
DWT 30225145v1 0103970-000001

STIPULATION

1
2
3
4
5

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED by Plaintiff and Defendant,
through their respective counsel of record, as follows:
The time for Defendant to respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint shall be extended through and
including September 26, 2016.

6
7

DATED: September 17, 2016

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
JEFFREY S. BOSLEY
JULIA BRODSKY

8
9
10

By: /s/ Jeffrey S. Bosley
Jeffrey S. Bosley

11

Attorneys for Defendant
CORPORATION SERVICE COMPANY
(erroneously sued as “California Service Company”)

12
13
14
15
16

DATED: September 17, 2016

ARNOLD LAW FIRM
JOSHUA H. WATSON

17
By: /s/ Joshua H. Watson
Joshua H. Watson

18
19

Attorney for Plaintiff
KASHONDA LAWSON

20
21

ORDER

22
23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 17, 2016

25
26
27
28
2
STIPULATION AND ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO FILE AND SERVE RESPONSIVE PLEADING
DWT 30225145v1 0103970-000001