Levy et al v. Charlotte School of Law, LLC et al

Filing 88

ORDER Granting (86) MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response re: (83) MOTION to Dismiss (Barchiesi, 3:16-cv-00861, D.E. 83, Krebs, 3:17-cv-00190, D.E. 126, Levy, 3:17-cv-00026, D.E. 86-1 and Ash, 3:17-cv-00039, D.E. 33) for Failure to State a Claim by Individual Defendants Ogene and Conison Responses due by 3/2/2018 plus an additional 3 days if served by mail. Signed by Senior Judge Graham Mullen on 2/23/2018. (jaw)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
ROBERT C. BARCHIESI, and LEJLA
HADZIC, Individually and in a
representative capacity on behalf of a class
of all persons similarly situated
Plaintiffs
vs.
CHARLOTTE SCHOOL OF LAW, LLC
and INFILAW CORPORATION,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No.: 3:16-cv-00861-GCM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
SPENCER KREBS, ET AL
Plaintiffs
vs.
CHARLOTTE SCHOOL OF LAW, LLC,
ET AL
Defendants

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 3:17-CV-00190-GCM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
RAISSA LEVY, ET AL
Plaintiffs
vs.
CHARLOTTE SCHOOL OF LAW, LLC
and INFILAW CORPORATION,
Defendants

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 3:17-cv-00026

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
LEAH ASH
Plaintiff,
vs.
CHARLOTTE SCHOOL OF LAW, LLC,
INFILAW, INC., and DOES 1 – 20, et al
Defendants

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 3:17-cv-00039-GCM

ORDER

THIS MATTER came before the Court on the Motion of Plaintiffs in the Consolidated
Class Action Complaint, pursuant to Rule 6(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for an
order extending the time to respond to Defendants Chidi Ogene and Jay Conison’s Motion to
Dismiss (Barchiesi, 3:16-cv-00861, D.E. 83, Krebs, 3:17-cv-00190, D.E. 126, Levy, 3:17-cv-

2

00026, D.E. 86-1 and Ash, 3:17-cv-00039, D.E. 33); and it appearing to the Court that the time
allowed has not expired and, therefore, the motion should be granted;

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the time for responding to Defendants’
Motion to Dismiss is extended to March 2, 2018.

Signed: February 23, 2018

3