Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Doe v. University of the Pacific

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


May 20, 2009

JANE DOE, PLAINTIFF,
v.
UNIVERSITY OF THE PACIFIC, DEFENDANT.

STIPULATION AND ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR DEFENDANT UNIVERSITY OF THE PACIFIC TO ANSWER PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT; REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE JOINT STATUS REPORT Complaint filed: March 18, 2009

STATEMENT

WHEREAS, on March 11, 2009, Plaintiff Jane Doe ("Plaintiff") filed the Complaint in this matter against Defendant University of the Pacific ("Defendant" or the "University"), and the Court issued a Summons in Civil Case ("Summons") on March 19, 2009;

WHEREAS, the University's Registered Agent for Service of Process is Larry Brehm, the University's Vice President and Chief Investment Officer;

WHEREAS, Plaintiff attempted service on the University of the Summons and Complaint on or about March 20, 2009, by delivering a copy of the Summons and Complaint to Patricia Metzger, an Administrative Coordinator in Mr. Brehm's office;

WHEREAS, Defendant disputes the efficacy of Plaintiff's service upon the University because the Summons and Complaint were not properly served upon Mr. Brehm, or an otherwise appropriate agent of the University;

WHEREAS, on April 16, 2009, Defendant filed and served on Plaintiff an executed Waiver of Service of Summons, which set Defendant's time to answer the Complaint at 60 days from April 15, 2009 (June 14, 2009), and simultaneously confirmed via letter to Plaintiff's counsel the date upon which Defendant's Answer was due;

WHEREAS, on May 5, 2009, through written correspondence, Plaintiff's counsel John Clune objected to Defendant's waiver of service;

WHEREAS, the parties have a good faith dispute as to the effectiveness of Plaintiff's service of the Complaint and Summons upon Ms. Metzger, and Defendant's April 16, 2009 execution of a Waiver of Service of Summons;

WHEREAS, Defendant has only recently retained Miller Law Group as counsel to represent it in this litigation, and Miller Law Group has only recently received the voluminous files relating to this case;

WHEREAS, no extensions have previously been obtained by the Parties as to the particular matters and counsel have timely sought these extensions;

WHEREAS, for the reasons stated above, and in light of the complexity of this matter, Defendant requires additional time to prepare its Answer to the Complaint, and the Parties require additional time to prepare their Joint Status Report and Rule 26 Initial Disclosures;

WHEREAS, good cause therefore exists to extend the time for Defendant to file and serve its Answer; and

WHEREAS, good cause exists to extend the time for the Parties to file a Joint Status Report;

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the Parties, through their respective undersigned attorneys of record, that Defendant has until May 26, 2009 to file its Answer to the Complaint in this matter.

IT IS FURTHER JOINTLY REQUESTED that the Court issue an order extending the time for the Parties to file a Joint Status Report by 14 days to June 5, 2009.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

ORDER

Having reviewed the Stipulation and Request executed by Plaintiff JANE DOE and Defendant UNIVERSITY OF THE PACIFIC, and good cause appearing, the Court hereby:

1. Extends the time for Defendant to file its Answer to the Complaint to May 26, 2009; and

2. Extends the time for the Parties to file a Joint Status Report pursuant to the Court's March 19, 2009 Order Requiring Joint Status Report. The Joint Status Report is now due to be filed on or before June 5, 2009.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20090520

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.