From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Haykingdom, Inc. v. Kdy International, Inc.

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California, Sacramento Division
Aug 18, 2015
2:15-cv-01596-TLN-KJN (E.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2015)

Opinion

          STEVEN A. LAMON, SEAN C. ADAMS, MURPHY AUSTIN ADAMS SCHOENFELD LLP, Sacramento, California, Attorneys for Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant, HAYKINGDOM, INC.

          ADAM WANG, LAW OFFICE OF ADAM WANG, Attorneys for KDY International, Inc.


          STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPONSE TO CROSS-COMPLAINT

          TROY L. NUNLEY, District Judge.

         Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Haykingdom, Inc. ("Haykingdom") and Defendant/Cross-Complainant KDY International, Inc. ("KDY"), by and through their attorneys of record in this case, hereby stipulate and agree that:

         WHEREAS, Haykingdom filed the instant action in the Superior Court of California, County of Yolo under Case No. CV15-753 on May 28, 2015 ("Action");

         WHEREAS, on July 23, 2015 KDY removed the Action to the United States District Court, Eastern District of California-Sacramento Division (Case No. 2:15-cv-01596);

         WHEREAS, on July 30, 2015, KDY filed a Counter-Claim (i.e., Cross-Complaint) and Haykingdom's responsive pleading is presently due on August 17, 2015;

         WHEREAS, upon preliminary assessment of the matter, the Parties have determined that both Haykingdom and KDY will benefit from an additional factual investigation of the matter;

         WHEREAS, Local Rule 6-144(a) of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California provides that the Parties may stipulate to extend the time for responding to a complaint without leave of Court so long as all parties affected by the extension consent and the extension is no longer than 28 days;

         IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between Haykingdom, on the one hand, and KDY, on the other, through their respective counsel of record herein, that Haykingdom may have an extension of time to answer, move, or otherwise respond to KDY's Counter-Claim (i.e. Cross-Complaint) to and including September 4, 2015.

         This extension of time will not alter the date of any event or deadline already fixed by Court order.

         IT IS SO STIPULATED. ORDER

         The Court, having duly considered the parties' stipulation as set forth above, and good cause appearing, hereby orders as follows: Haykingdom's deadline to file a responsive pleading to KDY's Counter-Claim (i.e. Cross-Complaint) shall be extended to September 4, 2015.

         IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Haykingdom, Inc. v. Kdy International, Inc.

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California, Sacramento Division
Aug 18, 2015
2:15-cv-01596-TLN-KJN (E.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2015)
Case details for

Haykingdom, Inc. v. Kdy International, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:HAYKINGDOM, INC., Plaintiff, v. KDY INTERNATIONAL, INC. and DOES 1-10…

Court:United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California, Sacramento Division

Date published: Aug 18, 2015

Citations

2:15-cv-01596-TLN-KJN (E.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2015)