SWEARINGEN v. LATE JULY SNACKS LLC

Case No. 13-cv-4324-EMC.

MARY SWEARINGEN and ROBERT FIGY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. LATE JULY SNACKS LLC, Defendant.

United States District Court, N.D. California, San Francisco Division.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Cause: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
Nature of Suit: 890 Other Statutory Actions
Source: PACER


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Mary Swearingen, Plaintiff, represented by Ben F. Pierce Gore , Pratt & Associates.

Mary Swearingen, Plaintiff, represented by David Malcolm McMullan, Jr. , Don Barrett, P.A., pro hac vice & David Shelton , David Shelton, PLLC.

Robert Figy, Plaintiff, represented by Ben F. Pierce Gore , Pratt & Associates, David Malcolm McMullan, Jr. , Don Barrett, P.A., pro hac vice & David Shelton , David Shelton, PLLC.

Late July Snacks LLC, Defendant, represented by Joshua L. Solomon , Pollack Solomon Duffy LLP & Rocky C. Tsai , Ropes & Gray LLP.


STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

EDWARD M. CHEN, District Judge.

Subject to the Court's approval, the parties stipulate as follows:

WHEREAS, on May 5, 2017, the Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part Late July's motion to dismiss, which provided plaintiffs with 30 days to file a third amended complaint;

WHEREAS, on June 2, 2017, plaintiffs filed their Third Amended complaint, which filing establishes, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(3), a deadline of June 16, 2017 for Late July to respond to the complaint; and

WHEREAS, the parties have agreed, in light of the length of the complaint, the nature of the amendments, and the Court's allowance of 30 days for plaintiffs to prepare and file the amended complaint, that Late July should be permitted an additional two weeks to file a response to the Third Amended Complaint;

The parties stipulate and respectfully request that the Court enter an order setting June 30, 2017 as Late July's deadline to respond to the complaint by answer or appropriate motion.

[PROPOSED] ORDER

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases