(PC)Cox v. Daram et al

Filing 44

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson on 02/06/2024 GRANTING 42 Motion for an extension of time. Defendant's 43 Reply to opposition is deemed timely.(Lopez, K)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ERNEST LEE COX, Jr., Case No. 2:21-cv-01778-DJC-JDP (PC) 12 13 v. 14 15 VASUKI DARAM, et al., 16 Plaintiff, [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF REQUESTING AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE A REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS Defendants. 17 Defendants moved for an extension of the deadline to file a reply to Plaintiff’s opposition to 18 Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Defendants requested to extend the foregoing deadlines by three 19 days, up to and including February 2, 2024. 20 The Court has read and considered the motion and finds that good cause exists to grant it. 21 22 23 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for administrative relief requesting an extension of time to file a reply to Plaintiff’s opposition is GRANTED, and Defendants reply to Plaintiff’s opposition, ECF No. 43, is deemed timely. 24 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 Dated: February 6, 2024 27 JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 28 1

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?