Ortiz v. Lin R. Rogers Electrical Contractors, Inc

Filing 17

ORDER Extending Briefing Schedule re 13 . ***Deadlines terminated. Response due by 12/27/2011. Reply due by 1/10/2012. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on 12/20/2011. (lhklc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/20/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6

John P. Boggs (State Bar No. 172578)
Jennifer M. Schermerhorn (State Bar No. 225070)
FINE, BOGGS & PERKINS, LLP
80 Stone Pine Road, Suite 210
Half Moon Bay, California 94019
Telephone: [phone]
Fax:
[phone]
Attorneys for Defendant
LIN R. ROGERS ELECTRICAL
CONTRACTORS, INC.

7
8
9
10
11

Michael Tracy (State Bar No. 237779)
LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL TRACY
2030 Main Street, Suite 200
Irvine, California 92614
Telephone: [phone]
Fax:
[phone]
Attorney for Plaintiff
VICTOR ORTIZ

12
13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

15
16
VICTOR ORTIZ,

USDC Case No. CV11-04750

17
Plaintiff,
18
v.
19
20

LIN R. ROGERS ELECTRICAL
CONTRACTORS, INC.

21

Defendant.

22
23

STIPULATION EXTENDING DEFENDANT’S TIME TO ANSWER OR OTHERWISE

24

RESPOND TO COMPLAINT

25
26

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6.1(a), the parties to the above-styled action, by and through
their undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate as follows:

27
28

1.)

Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Counterclaims was filed on November 29,

2011;
1
Stipulation– Case No. CV11-04750

1
2
3

2.)

otherwise respond to Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss Defendant’s Counterclaims, and Plaintiff’s
Reply to Defendant’s response is due by December 20, 2011;

4
5
6

3.)

extension to allow Plaintiff to reply to Defendant’s response.
4.)

5.)

6.)

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6.1(b), no court order is required to effect this

Stipulated Extension.

13

THEREFORE, the parties stipulate to the following:

14
15

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6.1(a), no court order is required to effect this

Stipulated The requested modification will have no effect on the schedule of this case;

11
12

The parties previously stipulated to extend the time for Defendant to respond to

Plaintiff’s Complaint from October 17, 2011 until November 7, 2011;

9
10

The parties have stipulated to a two-week extension to allow Defendant adequate

time to respond to Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss Defendant’s Counterclaims, and a two-week

7
8

Pursuant to Local Rule 7.3, Defendant has until December 13, 2011 to answer or

1.)

Defendant will answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss

16

Defendant’s Counterclaims no later than December 27, 2011.
2.)
Plaintiff’s Reply to Defendant’s Response shall be filed no later than January 10,

17

2012.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

SO STIPULATED, this 8th day of December, 2011.

/s/Jennifer M. Schermerhorn
Jennifer M. Schermerhorn
FINE, BOGGS & PERKINS LLP
Attorney for Defendant
LIN R. ROGERS ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS,
INC.
/s/Michael Tracy
Michael Tracy
LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL TRACY

27
28

Attorney for Plaintiff
VICTOR ORTIZ
2
Stipulation– Case No. CV11-04750

1
ORDER

2
3

Pursuant to Stipulation, IT IS SO ORDERED:

4
5

1.)

Defendant will answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss

Defendant’s Counterclaims no later than December 27, 2011.

6

2.)

Plaintiff’s Reply to Defendant’s Response shall be filed no later than January 10,

7
2012.
8
9
10
11

December 20, 2011
___________________
Date

___________________________________
Magistrate Judge
Lucy H. Koh
Northern District of California
United States Distict Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Stipulation– Case No. CV11-04750