Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01159/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01159-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
FLP, Inc.
Defendant
Robert McCarthy
Plaintiff
Silver Sprouts Company
Defendant

Document Text:

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

ROBERT MCCARTHY,

Plaintiff,

v.

FLP, INC., d/b/a SILVER SPROUTS 

COMPANY, 

Defendant.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:15-cv-01159---SKO

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT FLP, 

INC.’S EX PARTE REQUEST FOR AN 

EXTENSION OF TIME 

(Doc. 5)

On August 28, 2015, Defendant FLP, Inc., d/b/a Silver Sprouts Company, filed an ex parte 

motion for a 28-day extension of time to file a response to the Complaint. (Doc. 5.) Defense 

counsel attached a declaration to the ex parte motion, stating that the Complaint had been served 

on August 7, 2015, and he had been retained on August 24, 2015. (Doc. 5-1, ¶¶ 2, 5.) Defense 

counsel stated that he had left multiple voicemails and one email for Plaintiff Robert McCarthy’s 

counsel on August 26, 2015, requesting a stipulated extension of time. (Doc. 5-1, ¶ 3.) 

Case 1:15-cv-01159-SKO Document 6 Filed 09/04/15 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

A response to the Complaint was due on August 28, 2015; however, Plaintiff’s counsel did 

not respond to Defendant’s request for a stipulated extension. (Doc. 5-1, ¶ 4.) No executed 

summons or proof of service has been filed on the docket and Plaintiff has not filed any opposition 

to Defendant’s request. (See Docket.) Defendant’s request would not affect any deadlines in the 

case. (See Docs. 3; 4 (Case Management Conference set for September 29, 2015, and Scheduling 

Conference set for October 29, 2015).) 

Good cause having been shown, and in the absence of any prejudice to the Plaintiff, 

Defendant’s ex parte motion for an extension of time is GRANTED. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendant’s request for a 28-day extension of time to file a response to the 

complaint is GRANTED; and

2. Defendant shall file a response to the complaint on or before September 25, 2015.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 3, 2015 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01159-SKO Document 6 Filed 09/04/15 Page 2 of 2