Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00428/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00428-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mapes Ranch Investments, LLC
Defendant
OfficeMax North America, Inc. dba OfficeMax #6307
Defendant
Martin Vogel
Plaintiff

Document Text:

LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.

500 Capitol Mall

Suite 2000

Sacramento, CA 95814

916.830.7200

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

STIP. TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE 

RESPONSIVE PLEADING Case No. 4:16-cv-00428-LJO-SKO 

MICHAEL E. BREWER, Bar No. 177912

mbrewer@littler.com

LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.

333 Bush Street, 34th Floor

San Francisco, California 94104

Telephone: 415.433.1940

Facsimile: 415.399.8490

Barry H. Uhrman, AZ Bar No. 020714

(pro hac vice application to be filed) 

buhrman@littler.com

LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.

2425 East Camelback Road, Suite 900

Phoenix, Arizona 85016

Telephone: 602.474.3620

Facsimile: 602.532.7581

Attorneys for Defendants

OFFICEMAX NORTH AMERICA, INC. 

dba OFFICEMAX #6307 and MAPES RANCH 

INVESTMENTS, LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARTIN VOGEL,

Plaintiff,

v.

OFFICEMAX NORTH AMERICA, INC. 

dba OFFICEMAX #6307; MAPES 

RANCH INVESTMENTS, LLC,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:16-cv-00428-LJO-SKO

STIPULATION (SECOND) TO EXTEND 

THE TIME FOR DEFENDANTS

OFFICEMAX NORTH AMERICA, INC. 

dba OFFICEMAX #6307 AND MAPES 

RANCH INVESTMENTS, LLC, TO FILE 

RESPONSIVE PLEADING 

[LOCAL RULE 144]

Case 1:16-cv-00428-LJO-SKO Document 11 Filed 06/09/16 Page 1 of 3
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.

500 Capitol Mall

Suite 2000

Sacramento, CA 95814

916.830.7200

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

STIP. TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE 

RESPONSIVE PLEADING 1. Case No. 4:16-cv-00428-LJO-SKO

Pursuant to Local Rule 144, Plaintiff Martin Vogel (“Plaintiff”) and Defendants OfficeMax 

North America, Inc. dba OfficeMax #6307 (“OfficeMax”) and Mape’s Ranch Investments (Mape’s 

Ranch) (collectively, “Defendants”) hereby stipulate that Defendants shall have until June 24, 2016, 

to file a responsive pleading or otherwise respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint. 

This is the second (and final) request for an extension. The parties have initiated settlement 

discussions and are hopeful that this matter may resolve before responsive pleadings need to be filed.

Therefore, the parties hereby request that the Court continue the currently scheduled deadline 

for filing a responsive pleading to June 24, 2016.

Dated: June 7, 2016

By: /s/ Scottlynn J. Hubbard, IV

SCOTTLYNN J HUBBARD IV

KHUSHPREET R. MEHTON

DISABLED ADVOCACY GROUP, 

APLC

Attorneys for Plaintiff

MARGIN VOGEL

Dated: June 7, 2016

By: /s/ Michael E. Brewer

MICHAEL E. BREWER

BARRY H. UHRMAN

LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.

Attorneys for Defendants

OFFICEMAX NORTH AMERICA, INC. 

dba OFFICEMAX #6307 and 

MAPES RANCH INVESTMENTS, LLC

Case 1:16-cv-00428-LJO-SKO Document 11 Filed 06/09/16 Page 2 of 3
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.

500 Capitol Mall

Suite 2000

Sacramento, CA 95814

916.830.7200

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

STIP. TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE 

RESPONSIVE PLEADING 2. Case No. 4:16-cv-00428-LJO-SKO

ORDER

Pursuant to the Court's Order entered April 27, 2016 (Doc. 9), Defendants OfficeMax North 

America, Inc. dba OfficeMax #6307’s (“OfficeMax”) and Mape’s Ranch Investments’ (Mape’s 

Ranch) (collectively, “Defendants”) responses to Plaintiff Martin Vogel’s (“Plaintiff”) complaint 

were due May 31, 2016. The parties’ stipulated request for a second extension of time for 

Defendants to file their responsive pleadings was filed June 7, 2016, seven days after the responsive 

pleading deadline. Although the Court may extend time to file a responsive pleading after the 

deadline has expired because of “excusable neglect,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B), no such excusable 

neglect has been articulated – much less shown – here. However, given the absence of bad faith or 

prejudice to Plaintiff (as evidenced by the parties’ agreement to the extension of time) and the 

parties’ representations regarding settlement discussions, and in view of the liberal construction of 

Fed. R. Civ. 6(b)(1) to effectuate the general purpose of seeing that cases are tried on the merits, see 

Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1258-59 (9th Cir. 2010), the Court GRANTS the 

parties’ second stipulated request. 

It is hereby ORDERED that Defendants OfficeMax and Mape’s Ranch shall file their 

responsive pleadings by no later than June 24, 2016. This extension does not impact or change any 

event or deadline already set by the Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 8, 2016 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00428-LJO-SKO Document 11 Filed 06/09/16 Page 3 of 3