Free Order on Motion for Extension of Time - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

` ”-"""`[`A*'“°""`“"';"' __ , ` ____________
I Case 3:02-cv-01920-MRK Document. 1 58 Filed O1/O9/2004 Paggé tpfl @96 e.>< H'? ~—°—-
i · \¢)(\ , UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT i
_ \ .. FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT _,_ ·
’ Q it s7` I l
l B I -.7 J I Q
I DUNKIN’ DONUTS INCORPORATED, ) Ja.: U _. la; . I l
a Delaware corporation, and ) , ` " i
DUNI<.IN’ DONUTS USA, INC., ) Q, gj - _ j , . é
a Michigan corporation, ) °" ` i ‘ * Q _ {
Q )
y J Plaintiffs, ) CIVIL ACTION NO. l
1;; J 3:02 Cv 192 _ RK) I
5 )
g 4 DONUTS, INC., ) I
j a Connecticut corporation, ) i
GRANDO, INC., ) I
5;; a Connecticut corporation, )
Q GLENN STETZER, 3 I
KATHLEEN STETZER, ) i
; GEORGE GERMANO, and )
o JAMES MCMANAMA, I _ )
, ) E
A Defendants. )
g ) JANUARY 6, 2004
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME T0 FILE
p OPPOSITIONS T0 DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO THE COURT*S RULINGS
g ON DEFENDANTS· MOTION T0 COMPEL AND ON PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION
i · FOR LEAVE T0 FILE THEIR FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
4 " l
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(l) and Local Rule 7(b), Plaintiffs
as
5Dunkin’ Donuts Incorporated and Dunkin’ Donuts USA, Inc. hereby respectfully move for an ;
I 7 r
,. Extension of time to tile Oppositions to Det`endants’ Objections to the Court’s Rulings on
I. Defendants? Motion to Compel and on Plaintit`fs’ Motion for Leave to File Their First Amended
"‘ ri :55 `
,§! Complaint. Thoparties have agreed that they will tile a motion this week to Stay all deadlines
' rt;2 ‘`_. if ` ·_·l =
Q fot41inet_y;(90)..‘days while they work on finalizing a settlement of this action. If the parties are
ji K-, -·-***3 I- } ' I
{ tgiinalizgggtheir settlement before the expiration ofthe stay and the stay is lifted, Plaintiffs
*
‘ “" J
i A 5 i
i a-·•""* i i
sz P A i
l"
L, ,__, g __-i
“ i
i J
J J
i