From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Fortunato v. Metro. Life Ins. Co.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Mar 8, 2013
CASE NO.: 2:12-cv-02929-GEB-DAD (E.D. Cal. Mar. 8, 2013)

Opinion

CASE NO.: 2:12-cv-02929-GEB-DAD

03-08-2013

LISA FORTUNATO, Plaintiff, v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, and DOES 1 to 100, Defendants.


Hon. Garland E. Burrell, Jr.


[PROPOSED] ORDER ON SECOND

STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION

OF TIME FOR DEFENDANT

METROPOLITAN LIFE

INSURANCE COMPANY TO

RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF'S

COMPLAINT


[Local Rule 144]


Complaint Filed: December 4, 2012

[PROPOSED] ORDER

Upon consideration of the Second Stipulation filed by Plaintiff Lisa Fortunato ("Plaintiff") and Defendant Metropolitan Life Insurance Company ("Defendant"), to extend the time for Defendants to respond to Plaintiff's Complaint,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the parties' Stipulation shall be the Order of the Court, and that MetLife shall have up to and including March 18, 2013, to answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff's Complaint. IT IS SO ORDERED.

_________________

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

Senior United States District Judge


Summaries of

Fortunato v. Metro. Life Ins. Co.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Mar 8, 2013
CASE NO.: 2:12-cv-02929-GEB-DAD (E.D. Cal. Mar. 8, 2013)
Case details for

Fortunato v. Metro. Life Ins. Co.

Case Details

Full title:LISA FORTUNATO, Plaintiff, v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, and…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Mar 8, 2013

Citations

CASE NO.: 2:12-cv-02929-GEB-DAD (E.D. Cal. Mar. 8, 2013)