Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00293/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00293-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Theo Duncan
Plaintiff
Scotts Miracle-Gro Company
Defendant

Document Text:

1

_________________________________________________________________________________

ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT

Case No. 2:16-CV-293

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

KELLER, SLOAN, ROMAN & HOLLAND LLP

Christopher T. Holland (SBN 164055) cholland@ksrh.com

Ethan Jacobs (SBN 291838) ejacobs@ksrh.com

555 Montgomery St., 17th Floor

San Francisco, CA 94111

Telephone: (415) 249-8330

Facsimile: (415) 249-8333

MURRAY MURPHY MOUL + BASIL LLP

Geoffrey J. Moul (admitted pro hac vice)

1114 Dublin Road

Columbus, OH 43215

Telephone: (614) 610-9653 

Facsimile: (614) 488-0401

Email: moul@mmmb.com

Attorneys for Defendant

THE SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO COMPANY

GAW | POE LLP

Randolph Gaw (SBN 223718) rgaw@gawpoe.com

Mark Poe (SBN 223714) mpoe@gawpoe.com

Victor Meng (SBN 254102) vmeng@gawpoe.com

4 Embarcadero, Suite 1400

Telephone: (415) 766.7451

Facsimile: 415.737.0642

Attorneys for Plaintiff

THEO DUNCAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

(SACRAMENTO DIVISION)

THEO DUNCAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO COMPANY,

Defendant.

Case No.: 2:16-CV-293

ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO

RESPOND TO COMPLAINT

Case 2:16-cv-00293-TLN-KJN Document 12 Filed 05/02/16 Page 1 of 2
2

_________________________________________________________________________________

ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT

Case No. 2:16-CV-293

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

Plaintiff Theo Duncan and Defendant The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company, pursuant to Local 

Rule 144, previously stipulated to a 12-day extension of time up to and including May 2, 2016 for 

Defendant to move or plead in response to Plaintiff’s Complaint. The parties, by a Third Stipulation, 

agreed that Defendant be given an additional 14-day extension of time, up to and including May 16, 

2016, to move or plead in response to Plaintiff’s Complaint. 

Upon consideration of the Third Stipulation filed by the parties, Defendant’s deadline to 

respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint is extended to May 16, 2016.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 29, 2016

Case 2:16-cv-00293-TLN-KJN Document 12 Filed 05/02/16 Page 2 of 2