Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00072/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00072-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JESSICA ARGUETA, individually 

and on behalf of all others similarly 

situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

WALGREENS COMPANY, et al., 

Defendants.

Case No. 1:24-cv-00072-JLT-CDB

ORDER ON STIPULATION EXTENDING

NUNC PRO TUNC TIME FOR DEFENDANT 

TO FILE RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT

(Doc. 11) 

Plaintiff Jessica Argueta (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action with the filing of a complaint on 

January 17, 2024. (Doc. 1). Thereafter, the parties twice stipulated to extending Defendants time 

to respond to the complaint. (Docs. 6-7). On March 8, 2024, the Court ordered Defendant 

Walgreens Company (“Defendant”) to file its responsive pleading by April 1, 2024. (Doc. 8). 

On March 29, 2024, Defendant filed a request for substitution of attorney and the Court issued an 

order granting the request on April 1, 2024. (Docs. 9-10).

On April 1, 2024, the day a responsive filing was due, Defendant filed a joint stipulation 

seeking an order again extending time for Defendant to file a response to the complaint. (Doc. 

11). Defendant proffers that good cause warrants the brief extension because it recently obtained 

new counsel and requires additional time to file a responsive pleading. Id. at 2. 

In the Eastern District of California, “[r]equests for Court-approved extensions brought on 

the required filing date for the pleading or other document are looked upon with disfavor.” Local 

Rule 144(d). While the Court finds good cause to grant the parties’ request, here, it should have 

become apparent to Defendant that it required an extension of time to file a responsive pleading 

Case 1:24-cv-00072-JLT-CDB Document 12 Filed 04/02/24 Page 1 of 2
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

2

well before the April 1, 2024, deadline. The Court disfavors granting relief nunc pro tunc and 

admonishes Defendant to exercise better care and to adhere to this Court’s Local Rules in all 

future filings.

For good cause shown, it is HEREBY ORDERED, Defendant shall have until April 15, 

2024, to respond to the complaint.

It is FURTHER ORDERED the following schedule shall govern the briefing of any 

motion to dismiss timely brought by Defendant:

1. Defendant shall file a motion to dismiss by no later than April 15, 2024.

2. Plaintiff shall file an opposition to such motion by no later than May 15, 2024.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 2, 2024 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-00072-JLT-CDB Document 12 Filed 04/02/24 Page 2 of 2