Filing 4

ORDER granting 3 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer filed by THE HOOVER COMPANY,, HOOVER COMPANY, I, Signed by Judge STEPHAN P MICKLE on 05/17/06. Answer due by 5/30/2006(bkp, Gainesville)

Download PDF
HILL v. THE HOOVER COMPANY et al Doc. 4 Case 1:06-cv-00096-SPM-AK Document 4 Filed 05/17/2006 Page 1 of 2 Page 1 of 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA GAINESVILLE DIVISION JENNIFER HILL, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. THE HOOVER COMPANY and THE HOOVER COMPANY I, foreign corporations doing business in Florida, Defendants. ____________________________________/ ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO FILE RESPONSIVE PLEADING THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the "Defendants' Motion for Enlargement of Time to Respond to Plaintiff's Complaint" (doc. 3) filed May 16, 2006. Defendants indicate that there is some confusion about the date on which service of process was effected, which ultimately determines the response deadline. Using the more recent service date of May 16, 2006, a response would be due May 30, 2006. In the interest of justice, the Court finds the more liberal May 30, 2006 date to be an appropriate deadline for both Defendants to file responses to the complaint. Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The motion for extension of time (doc. 3) is hereby granted. 1:06-CV-096-SPM/AK Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:06-cv-00096-SPM-AK Document 4 Filed 05/17/2006 Page 2 of 2 Page 2 of 2 2. The responsive pleadings to the complaint shall be filed by both Defendants on or before May 30, 2006. DONE AND ORDERED this seventeenth day of May, 2006. s/ Stephan P. Mickle Stephan P. Mickle 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?