From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Smith v. Schwarzenegger

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California, Fresno Division
Jan 27, 2015
1:14-CV-00060-LJO-SAB (E.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2015)

Opinion

          LAW OFFICES OF BENJAMIN PAVONE, PC, BENJAMIN PAVONE Attorney for Plaintiffs

          KAMALA D. HARRIS Attorney General of California JAY C. RUSSELL Supervising Deputy Attorney General, MICHELLE L. ANGUS Deputy Attorney General Attorneys for Defendants Beard, Brazelton, Cate, Hartley, Hubbard, Hysen, Kernan, Meyer, Rothchild, Schwartz- Reagle, Schwarzenegger, and Yates

          BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP - LOS ANGELES, SUSAN E. COLEMAN KRISTINA DOAN Attorney for Co-Defendants F. Igbinosa M.D. and D. Winslow, M.D.


          STIPULATION AND ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR DEFENDANTS TO FILE RESPONSIVE PLEADING

         The parties stipulate under Local Rule 144(a) to an extension of time for Defendants to respond to the Consolidated Complaint. Defendants shall have until February 6, 2015, to respond to the Consolidated Complaint. Plaintiffs shall have until noon on March 13, 2015, to file an opposition to Defendants’ contemplated motion to dismiss, and Defendants shall have until March 20, 2015, to file a reply.

         IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Smith v. Schwarzenegger

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California, Fresno Division
Jan 27, 2015
1:14-CV-00060-LJO-SAB (E.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2015)
Case details for

Smith v. Schwarzenegger

Case Details

Full title:COREY LAMAR SMITH, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, et al.…

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

Date published: Jan 27, 2015

Citations

1:14-CV-00060-LJO-SAB (E.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2015)