UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
October 5, 2011
ANNALISA LEWIS, INDIVIDUALLY, AND MICHELLE CATBAGAN, INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED, PLAINTIFFS,
VISION VALUE, LLC DBA STANTON OPTICAL, AND DOES 1 THROUGH 100, INCLUSIVE,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Lawrence J. O'Neill
STIPULATION AND ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR DEFENDANT VISION VALUE, LLC'S TO RESPOND TO THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Pursuant to Local Rules 143 and 144, Plaintiffs Annalisa Lewis, Michelle Catbagan and Defendant Vision Value, LLC dba Stanton Optical, by and through their attorneys of record, hereby submit this Stipulation to Extend the Time to Respond to the First Amended Complaint to November 4, 2011.
On September 23, 2011, the parties engaged in Rule 26 conference in preparation of this case and in anticipate of the scheduled status conference. The parties agreed a cost 3 effective way to litigate this case was to engage in informal discovery and exchange of 4 documents. This way the parties could prepare for alternative dispute resolution, either 5 6 private mediation or through the Court. In light of this agreement, the parties further agree Defendant Vision Value, LLC dba Stanton Optical's responsive pleading should be filed on 8 or before November 4, 2011.
Dated: October 5, 2011 MICHAEL MALK, ESQ. APC By: /s Michael Malk Michael Malk Attorneys for Plaintiffs ANNALISA LEWIS and MICHELLE CATBAGAN Dated: October 5, 2011 NEIL, DYMOTT, FRANK, MCFALL & TREXLER A Professional Law Corporation By: /s David P. Hall Hugh A. McCabe David P. Hall Attorneys for Defendant VISION VALUE LLC dba STANTON OPTICAL
In light of the foregoing Stipulation of the parties and good cause appearing, the Court approves the Stipulation. Defendant Vision Value, LLC dba Stanton Optical shall file its responsive pleading on or before November 4, 2011.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Michael J. Seng UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.