Ortiz v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. et al
Filing
13
STIPULATION and ORDER extending time for Defendant Credit One Bank, N.A. to Respond to the Complaint by 5/25/2018 12 , signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 5/11/2018. This change in deadline will not alter the date of any event or any deadline already fixed by the Court order, Local Rules, or the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Kirksey Smith, K)
REED SMITH LLP
A limited liability partnership formed in the State of Delaware
1 Tuan Uong (SBN 272447)
Email:
tuong@reedsmith.com
2 REED SMITH LLP
355 South Grand Avenue
3 Suite 2900
Los Angeles, CA 90071-1514
4 Telephone: +1 213 457 8000
Facsimile: +1 213 457 8080
5
Le T. Duong (SBN 297662)
lduong@reedsmith.com
6 Email:
REED SMITH LLP
7 101 Second Street
Suite 1800
8 San Francisco, CA 94105-3659
Telephone: +1 415 543 8700
9 Facsimile: +1 415 391 8269
10 Attorneys for Defendant
Credit One Bank, N.A.
11
12
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
13
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – SACRAMENTO DIVISION
14
15
ROBERT ORTIZ,
16
17
18
Case No. 2:18-cv-00954-WBS-CKD
Plaintiff,
v.
Experian Information Solutions, Inc.; Equifax,
19 Inc.; Credit One Bank, N.A., Avant, Inc.,, and
DOES 1 through 100 inclusive,
20
Defendants.
21
STIPULATION TO EXTEND DEFENDANT
CREDIT ONE BANK, N.A.’S TIME TO
RESPOND TO COMPLAINT AND
[PROPOSED] ORDER
Compl. Filed:
April 17, 2018
Honorable William B. Shubb
Honorable Carolyn K. Delaney
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION TO EXTEND DEFENDANT CREDIT ONE BANK, N.A.’S TIME TO
RESPOND TO COMPLAINT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
1
This Joint Stipulation to Extend Time to Respond to Complaint to May 25, 2018 is made by
2 and between Plaintiff Robert Ortiz (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant Credit One Bank, N.A. (“Credit
3 One”) through their respective counsel, in light of the following facts:
RECITALS
4
5
On April 20, 2018, Plaintiff served her Complaint on Credit One.
6
Credit One’s response to Plaintiff’s Complaint is due on or before May 11, 2018.
7
The parties agree to extend Credit One’s time to respond to the Complaint to May 25, 2018,
8 in order to give Credit One additional time to investigate Plaintiff’s claims and prepare a proper
9 response, and 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 Credit One’s response deadline because Credit One 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 Civil Local Rule 144, Plaintiff and Credit One stipulate that Credit One’s time to
14 respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint is extended to May 25, 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 Credit One to respond to the Complaint shall be continued to May 25, 2018.
20
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
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
23
24
25
26
27
28
–1–
STIPULATION TO EXTEND DEFENDANT CREDIT ONE BANK, N.A.’S TIME TO
RESPOND TO COMPLAINT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
1
DATED: May 11, 2018
2
REED SMITH LLP
3
By: /s/ Le Duong
Tuan Uong
Le T. Duong
Attorneys for Defendant
Credit One Bank, N.A.
4
5
6
7
DATED: May 11, 2018
8
By:
9
REED SMITH LLP
10
A limited liability partnership formed in the State of Delaware
SAGARIA LAW, P.C.
/s/ Elliot Gale
Elliot Gale
[As authorized on May 11, 2018]
Attorney for Plaintiff
Robert Ortiz
11
12 IT IS SO ORDERED.
13
Dated: May 11, 2018
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
–2–
STIPULATION TO EXTEND DEFENDANT CREDIT ONE BANK, N.A.’S TIME TO
RESPOND TO COMPLAINT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
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?