From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Brooks v. It Works Mktg.

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Jun 21, 2022
1:21-cv-01341-DAD-BAK (SKO) (E.D. Cal. Jun. 21, 2022)

Opinion

1:21-cv-01341-DAD-BAK (SKO)

06-21-2022

AILEEN BROOKS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. IT WORKS MARKETING, INC., IT WORKS! GLOBAL, INC., MARK PENTECOST, and PAUL NASSIF, Defendants.


Complaint Filed: September 3, 2021

ORDER GRANTING PARTIES' STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME FOR DEFENDANTS TO ANSWER OR OTHERWISE RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

(Doc. 39)

SHEILA K. OBERTO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The Court has considered the parties' Stipulation to Extend Time for Defendants to Answer or Otherwise Respond to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. (Doc. 39.) Good cause appearing, the Court hereby GRANTS the parties' request. The time within which Defendants are required to respond to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint is extended until July 7, 2022.

The parties also stipulated to extensions of time in connection with “Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.” (See Doc. 39.) However, no such motion has been filed. (See Docket.) Accordingly, the Court finds the stipulated extensions premature at this time and declines to approve them. Any motion to dismiss filed by Defendants shall be noticed and briefed in accordance with Local Rule 230. Should modifications to the briefing schedule become necessary, the parties may file a stipulation for court approval at that time.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Brooks v. It Works Mktg.

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Jun 21, 2022
1:21-cv-01341-DAD-BAK (SKO) (E.D. Cal. Jun. 21, 2022)
Case details for

Brooks v. It Works Mktg.

Case Details

Full title:AILEEN BROOKS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated…

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Jun 21, 2022

Citations

1:21-cv-01341-DAD-BAK (SKO) (E.D. Cal. Jun. 21, 2022)