Opinion
2:22-cv-01150-JAD-VCF
04-07-2023
MICHELE DANISE MILLER, Plaintiff, v. LONG DRUGS DBA CVS HEALTH, et al., Defendant
Tye S. Hanseen, Esq. Nicholas Crosby, Esq. Reagan Weber, Esq. William Reese Levins, Esq. MARQUIS AURBACH Attorneys for Plaintiff, MICHELE DANISE MILLER Ethan D. Thomas, Esq. Andrew S. Clark, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. Attorneys for Defendant, CAREMARK, L.L.C.
Tye S. Hanseen, Esq. Nicholas Crosby, Esq. Reagan Weber, Esq. William Reese Levins, Esq.
MARQUIS AURBACH
Attorneys for Plaintiff, MICHELE DANISE MILLER
Ethan D. Thomas, Esq. Andrew S. Clark, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
Attorneys for Defendant, CAREMARK, L.L.C.
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND TIME FOR DEFENDANT TO FILE RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT [FIRST REQUEST]
Plaintiff, Michelle Danise Miller ("Ms. Miller"), and Defendant, Caremark, L.L.C. (incorrectly named in the Amended Complaint as Long Drugs DBA CVS Health) (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant”), by and through their respective counsel of record, hereby agree and stipulate to extend the time for Defendant to file a response to the Amended Complaint up to and including April 19, 2023.
On or about February 18, 2023, Ms. Miller mailed to Defendant a package that included a copy of her Amended Complaint, a Notice of Lawsuit and Request to Waive Service of a Summons, and a Waiver of the Service of Summons form. On March 13, 2023, and before Defendant became aware that the Court appointed pro bono counsel for Ms. Miller, Defendant's counsel signed and retuned to Ms. Miller a Waiver of the Service of Summons. The waiver and accompanying email to Ms. Miller is attached as Exhibit 1. Having signed and returned the Waiver, Defendant expected a sixty-day window to respond to the Amended Complaint, which would expire on April 19, 2023.
It was recently discovered that on March 10, 2023, Plaintiff filed a returned certificate of service which indicated that the operative Amended Complaint had purportedly been personally served on an agent for service of process for Defendant. [ECF No. 16]. For various reasons, Defendant disputes that service was proper and effective as indicated in the Proof of Service filed on March 10, 2023. To clarify the record and resolve any confusion related to these issues, the parties now stipulate and agree that Defendant's deadline to respond to the Amended Complaint [ECF No. 6] shall be April 19, 2023.
The instant stipulation merely reflects the responsive-pleading deadline in the Waiver of Service returned to Plaintiff by Defendant's counsel. Had service been correct and effective as indicated in the Return of Service filed by Plaintiff on March 10, 2023, the deadline would have been March 29, 2022. While Defendant disputes that the deadline to respond to the Complaint has expired, even if it had, the parties agree and stipulate that excusable neglect can be established by the above referenced information and that good cause exists to extend the deadline in question. See LR IA 6-1(a). Further, the requested stipulation clarifies the record and the extension will allow Defendant's counsel to sufficiently investigate Ms. Miller's claims and prepare a sufficient response to the Amended Complaint. To this end, Defendant will not be disputing the efficacy of service of process.
This is the first request for an extension of time to respond to the Amended Complaint and is made in good faith and not for purposes of delay.
IT IS SO ORDERED.