Sanchez v. Equifax, Inc. et al

Filing 10

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 3/19/18: The deadline for Synchrony to respond to the Complaint shall be continued to April 12, 2018. (Kaminski, H)

1 Le T. Duong (SBN 297662)
Email:
[e-mail]
2 REED SMITH LLP
101 Second Street
3 Suite 1800
San Francisco, CA 94105-3659
4 Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
5
Attorneys for Defendant
6 Synchrony Bank
7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

REED SMITH LLP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9
A limited liability partnership formed in the State of Delaware

8

SACRAMENTO DIVISION

11 JUAN SANCHEZ,
Plaintiff,

12
13

No.: 2:18-cv-00308-KJM-DB

vs.

STIPULATION TO EXTEND DEFENDANT
SYNCHRONY BANK’S TIME TO
RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
AND ORDER

14 EQUIFAX, INC., et. al.,
15

Defendants.

Compl. Filed:

February 9, 2018

16
Honorable Kimberly J. Mueller
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION TO EXTEND DEFENDANT SYNCHRONY BANK’S
TIME TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT AND ORDER

1

This Joint Stipulation to Extend Time to Respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint to April 12, 2018

2 is made by and between Plaintiff Juan Sanchez (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant Synchrony Bank
3 (“Synchrony”) through their respective counsel, in light of the following facts:
4

RECITALS

5

On February 22, 2018 Plaintiff served his Complaint on Synchrony.

6

Synchrony’s response to Plaintiff’s Complaint is due on or before March 15, 2018.

7

The parties agree to extend Synchrony’s time to respond to the Complaint to April 12, 2018,

8 in order to give Synchrony time to investigate Plaintiff’s claims and prepare a proper response, and
9 for the parties to potentially reach a resolution of this matter.

REED SMITH LLP

A limited liability partnership formed in the State of Delaware

10

There is good cause to extend Synchrony’s response deadline because Synchrony requires

11 additional time to investigate Plaintiff’s allegations and prepare a proper response, and the parties
12 require additional time to consider a resolution of this matter.
13

Pursuant to Local Rule 144(a), Plaintiff and Synchrony stipulate that Synchrony’s time to

14 respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint is extended to Thursday, April 12, 2018.
15

This change in deadline will not alter the date of any event or any deadline already fixed by

16 Court order, local rules, or the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
17

THEREFORE, the parties stipulate as follows:

18

STIPULATION

19

The deadline for Synchrony to respond to the Complaint shall be continued to April 12,

20 2018. This change in deadline will not alter the date of any event or any deadline already fixed by
21 the Court order, local rules, or the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
22 / / /
23 / / /
24 / / /
25 / / /
26 / / /
27 / / /
28
–1–
STIPULATION TO EXTEND DEFENDANT SYNCHRONY BANK’S
TIME TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT AND ORDER

1 IT IS SO STIPULATED.
2
3
4 DATED: March 8, 2018

REED SMITH LLP

5
By:

6
7

/s/ Le T. Duong
Le T. Duong
Attorney for Defendant
Synchrony Bank

8
9

REED SMITH LLP

A limited liability partnership formed in the State of Delaware

10 DATED: March 8, 2018

SAGARIA LAW, P.C.

11
12

By:

13
14

/s/ Elliot Gale
Elliot Gale
Attorney for Plaintiff
Juan Sanchez
[Authorized to File on March 8, 2018]

15
16
IT IS SO ORDERED.
17
18 DATED: March 19, 2018.
19
20

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
–2–
STIPULATION TO EXTEND DEFENDANT SYNCHRONY BANK’S
TIME TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT AND ORDER