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.

Jasdev Singh v. United States Department of Homeland Security and Does 1-50

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


December 28, 2012

JASDEV SINGH,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND DOES 1-50, DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sheila K. Oberto United States Magistrate Judge

DEFENDANT'S EXPARTE APPLICATION FOR INITIAL ONE-WEEK EXTENSION OF TIME TO REPLY; ORDER

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security, defendant, applies under Local Rule 144(c) for an initial one-week extension of the time under L.R. 130(l) for defendant to reply to plaintiff's opposition to the pending dismissal motion. The reason is that defense counsel needs the added time to obtain information from an agency for the reply. No previous extension of this time has been sought or granted. A suggested form of order is included in the event this application is granted.

Dated: December 28, 2012 BENJAMIN B. WAGNER United States Attorney By: /s/ YHimel YOSHINORI H. T. HIMEL Assistant U.S. Attorney

COUNSEL DECLARATION

YOSHINORI H. T. HIMEL, under 28 U.S.C. 1746(2), declares as follows:

1. I am an Assistant United States Attorney and am assigned the captioned case.

2. I received plaintiff's papers opposing defendant's pending dismissal and summary judgment motion electronically on December 26, 2012, and by mail on December 27, 2012. Because plaintiff says he served the papers on December 19, 2012, by my calculation reply is due January 2, 2013, only three court days from the opposition's first receipt.

3. To prepare a reply, I need further agency information. I estimate that the needed information can be obtained in time for a reply filing by January 9, 2012.

4. By letter dated December 28, 2012, copied by fax, I asked plaintiff for his position on an extension of this time. A copy of the letter is attached hereto.

5. I have not received a response from plaintiff. 6. In my opinion, the requested period of extension will suffice to perform the needed tasks. No previous request for this extension has been made or granted.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on December 28, 2012.

/s/ YHimel YOSHINORI H. T. HIMEL

ORDER

Upon defendant's ex parte application, good cause having been shown, defendant's time to reply to plaintiff's opposition to dismissal is EXTENDED until January 9, 2013.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20121228

© 1992-2012 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.