From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Martinelli v. Johnson & Johnson

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Sep 18, 2015
2:15-cv-01733-JAM-DAD (E.D. Cal. Sep. 18, 2015)

Opinion

          TUCKER ELLIS LLP, Mollie F. Benedict, Amanda Villalobos, Los Angeles, CA, Attorneys for Defendants JOHNSON & JOHNSON and MCNEIL NUTRITIONALS, LLC

          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A., L. Timothy Fisher, Julia A. Luster, Walnut Creek, CA, Attorneys for Plaintiff JOANN MARTINELLI.


          STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO INITIAL COMPLAINT BY NOT MORE THAN 28 DAYS (L.R. 144)

          JOHN A. MENDEZ, District Judge.

         Defendants Johnson & Johnson and McNeil Nutritionals, LLC ("Defendants") and Plaintiff JoAnn Martinelli ("Plaintiff"), by and through the undersigned counsel and pursuant to Rule 6 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 144, stipulate to an extension of time, to and including October 21, 2015, for Defendants to respond to Plaintiff's Complaint.

         IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Martinelli v. Johnson & Johnson

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Sep 18, 2015
2:15-cv-01733-JAM-DAD (E.D. Cal. Sep. 18, 2015)
Case details for

Martinelli v. Johnson & Johnson

Case Details

Full title:JOANN MARTINELLI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly…

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

Date published: Sep 18, 2015

Citations

2:15-cv-01733-JAM-DAD (E.D. Cal. Sep. 18, 2015)