From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Moore v. Hieng

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Mar 23, 2015
1:14-CV-01968 MJS (E.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2015)

Opinion

          THIRD STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR DEFENDANTS TOM HIENG, GORDON K. TESSMAN, JEAN A. TESSMAN, DOUGLAS ARNOLD JORISSEN, KIMBER LEA JORISSEN, STACEY LANE WALTER AND RITHY SOK TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT; ORDER THEREON

          MICHAEL J. SENG, Magistrate Judge.

         WHEREAS, Plaintiff, RONALD MOORE ("Plaintiff"), and Defendants TOM HIENG, GORDON K. TESSMAN, JEAN A. TESSMAN, DOUGLAS ARNOLD JORISSEN, KIMBER LEA JORISSEN, STACEY LANE WALTER and RITHY SOK ("Defendants") acknowledge that the parties previously stipulated to an extension of time wherein Defendants' response to the First Amended Complaint is currently due on or before March 30, 2015;

         WHEREAS, the above-referenced parties are currently evaluating Defendants' Certified Access Specialist Report and working together to explore all avenues towards settlement. The parties wish to avoid the costs associated with filing responsive pleadings, and conserve the resources of the Court.

         NOW, THEREFORE, the parties, by and through their counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows:

          Amy R. Lovegren-Tipton, LAW OFFICE OF AMY R. LOVEGREN-TIPTON, APLC, Fresno, California, Attorneys for Defendants TOM HIENG, GORDON K. TESSMAN, JEAN A. TESSMAN, DOUGLAS ARNOLD JORISSEN, KIMBER LEA JORISSEN, STACEY LANE WALTER, RITHY SOK.

          MOORE LAW FIRM, P.C., TANYA E. MOORE, Attorney for Plaintiff.

          1. To an extension of time (i.e., a third extension which, in total, exceeds 28 days) for Defendants to respond to the First Amended Complaint herein, through and including April 16, 2015, which extension exceeds the maximum 28 days permissible without leave of Court.


          ORDER

         The Parties having so stipulated and good cause appearing,

         IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' response to the First Amended Complaint is now due on or before April 16, 2015.

         IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Moore v. Hieng

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Mar 23, 2015
1:14-CV-01968 MJS (E.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2015)
Case details for

Moore v. Hieng

Case Details

Full title:RONALD MOORE, Plaintiff, v. TOM HIENG dba SUNSHINE DONUTS; GORDON K…

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

Date published: Mar 23, 2015

Citations

1:14-CV-01968 MJS (E.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2015)