Rose v. Equifax, Inc. et al

Filing 22

ORDER RE: STIPULATIONS. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on 02/23/17. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/23/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 LACY ROSE, Plaintiff, 8 EQUIFAX, INC., et al., Re: Dkt. Nos. 18, 19 Defendants. 11 United States District Court Northern District of California ORDER RE: STIPULATIONS v. 9 10 Case No. 17-cv-00419-MMC 12 On February 16, 2017, and February 17, 2017, respectively, plaintiff Lacy Rose 13 14 entered stipulations with defendants Equifax, Inc. and TD Bank, USA National 15 Association (“Stipulating Defendants”), by which the parties agreed to extend the time for 16 Stipulating Defendants’ responses to plaintiff’s complaint and also, in the event such 17 response is a motion to dismiss, to expand the briefing schedule thereon. To the extent the parties have agreed upon an extension of time to respond to 18 19 plaintiff’s complaint, such stipulation is effective “without a Court order.” See Civil L.R. 6- 20 1(a). 21 To the extent the parties wish to alter the briefing schedule, however, the parties 22 are hereby advised that they will need to obtain court approval. See Civil L.R. 6-1(b) 23 (providing “[a] Court order is required” for “any enlargement or shortening of time that 24 alters an event or deadline . . . that involves papers required to be filed or lodged with the 25 Court (other than an initial response to the complaint)”). 26 27 28 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 23, 2017 MAXINE M. CHESNEY United States District Judge

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?