Opinion
ELIZABETH A. SPERLING, JESSICA L. SHARRON, ALSTON & BIRD LLP, Los Angeles, California, Attorneys for Defendants, SENTOSA PROPERTIES LLC, a Washington, limited liability company, and ARNOLD HUANG.
DAVID M. GILMORE, STEPHEN D. BLEA, GILMORE MAGNESS LEIFER, Fresno, CA, Attorneys for Plaintiffs, WILLIAM BARKETT, MONTEREY FINANCIAL, ADVISORS LLC, and WASCO INVESTMENTS LLC.
STIPULATION RE DEFENDANTS' DEADLINE TO ANSWER FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; ORDER DENYING STIPULATION AS MOOT (Doc. 59)
JENNIFER L. THURSTON, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiffs William Barkett, Monterey Financial Advisors, LLC, and Wasco Investments LLC (collectively "Plaintiffs") and Defendants Sentosa Properties LLC and Arnold Huang ("Defendants") (collectively, the "Parties"), by and through their respective counsel of record named herein, hereby stipulate as follows:
Whereas, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint on March 9, 2015 ("the FAC");
Whereas, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss on March 26, 2015 (the "Motion");
Whereas, hearing on the Motion is set for April 27, 2015;
Whereas, because the Defendants have a potentially case dispositive Motion currently pending before the Court, the Parties believe that Defendants should not file an Answer to the FAC until the Motion is heard and decided.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby requested and stipulated by and between the Parties, through their respective counsel of record, that Defendants' deadline to file an Answer to the FAC be set for 14 days after the Court issues its final ruling on the Motion, if the case remains pending at that time, or another time to be prescribed by the Court.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
Respectfully submitted.
ORDER
Before the Court is the stipulation of counsel, set forth above, seeking an extension of time for Defendants to file a responsive pleading. (Doc. 56) However, as noted above, Defendants have filed a responsive pleading under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b). (Doc. 59) Thus, whether an answer will be filed will be determined by the Court when it decides the merits of Defendants' motion to dismiss. Thus, the stipulation seeking additional time for Defendants to respond to the First Amended Complaint is DENIED as MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.