Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-00419/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-00419-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 15:1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LACY ROSE,

Plaintiff,

v.

EQUIFAX, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-00419-MMC 

ORDER RE: STIPULATIONS

Re: Dkt. Nos. 18, 19

On February 16, 2017, and February 17, 2017, respectively, plaintiff Lacy Rose 

entered stipulations with defendants Equifax, Inc. and TD Bank, USA National 

Association (“Stipulating Defendants”), by which the parties agreed to extend the time for 

Stipulating Defendants’ responses to plaintiff’s complaint and also, in the event such 

response is a motion to dismiss, to expand the briefing schedule thereon. 

To the extent the parties have agreed upon an extension of time to respond to 

plaintiff’s complaint, such stipulation is effective “without a Court order.” See Civil L.R. 6-

1(a). 

To the extent the parties wish to alter the briefing schedule, however, the parties 

are hereby advised that they will need to obtain court approval. See Civil L.R. 6-1(b) 

(providing “[a] Court order is required” for “any enlargement or shortening of time that 

alters an event or deadline . . . that involves papers required to be filed or lodged with the 

Court (other than an initial response to the complaint)”).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 23, 2017

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:17-cv-00419-MMC Document 22 Filed 02/23/17 Page 1 of 1