Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00293/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00293-0/pdf.json

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

Document Text:

ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR DEFENDANT TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT- 1

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

SMITH, MCDOWELL & POWELL

A LAW CORPORATION

Brad A. McDowell (S.B. #207142) 

C. Jason Smith (S.B. #237966)

Matthew M. Breining (SB #306788)

100 Howe Ave., Suite 208 S

Sacramento, CA 95825

Telephone: 916.569.8100

Facsimile: 916.848.3777

E-mail: bmcdowell@smplawcorp.com

cjsmith@smplawcorp.com

mbreining@smplawcorp.com

MURRAY MURPHY MOUL + BASIL LLP

Geoffrey J. Moul (admitted pro hac vice)

1114 Dublin Road

Columbus, OH 43215

Telephone: 614.488.0400

Facsimile: 614.488.0401

E-mail: moul@mmmb.com

Attorney for Defendant The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company

GAW | POE LLP

Randolph Gaw (S.B. #223718)

Mark Poe (S.B. #223714)

Victor Meng (S.B. #254102)

4 Embarcadero, Suite 1400

Telephone: 415.766.7451

Facsimile: 415.737.0642

E-mail: rgaw@gawpoe.com

 mpoe@gawpoe.com

 vmeng@gawpoe.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff Theo Duncan

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SACRAMENTO DIVISION

THEO DUNCAN,

Plaintiff,

vs.

THE SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO COMPANY,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 2:16-cv-00293-TLN-KJN

Judge Troy L. Nunley

ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR 

DEFENDANT TO RESPOND TO 

COMPLAINT

Case 2:16-cv-00293-TLN-KJN Document 8 Filed 04/21/16 Page 1 of 2
ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR DEFENDANT TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT- 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

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

Local Rule 144, previously stipulated to a 16-day extension of time up to and including April 20, 

2016 for Defendant to move or plead in response to Plaintiff’s Complaint. The parties, by a 

Second Stipulation, agreed that Defendant be given an additional 12-day extension of time, up to 

and including May 2, 2016, to move or plead in response to Plaintiff’s Complaint. The total

stipulated extension does not exceed 28 days.

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

to respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint is extended to May 2, 2016.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 19, 2016

Case 2:16-cv-00293-TLN-KJN Document 8 Filed 04/21/16 Page 2 of 2