Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Rivera v. Bogden, 2:17-cv-02776-JCM-NJK. (2019)

Court: District Court, D. Nevada Number: infdco20190530e53 Visitors: 23
Filed: May 29, 2019
Latest Update: May 29, 2019
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND THE DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (First Request) JAMES C. MAHAN , District Judge . COMES NOW, Plaintiff RUDY RIVERA, by and through his counsel of record Mitchell S. Bisson, Esq. of the Callister Law Group, and Defendant CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA ("CoreCivic"), by and through its counsel of record Jacob. B. Lee, Esq. of Struck Love Bojanowski & Acedo, PLC, and hereby respectfully submit this Stipulation and Order to
More

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND THE DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(First Request)

COMES NOW, Plaintiff RUDY RIVERA, by and through his counsel of record Mitchell S. Bisson, Esq. of the Callister Law Group, and Defendant CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA ("CoreCivic"), by and through its counsel of record Jacob. B. Lee, Esq. of Struck Love Bojanowski & Acedo, PLC, and hereby respectfully submit this Stipulation and Order to Extend the Deadline to Respond to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (the "Stipulation"). This Stipulation is made in accordance with LR IA 6-1, LR IA 6-2, LR 7-1, and LR 26-4 of the Local Rules of this Court. This is the first request for an extension of time to file the Plaintiff's response Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and subsequent Reply from Defendant.

Defendants filed the Motion for Summary Judgment [Dkt. 47] on May 3, 2019 and Plaintiffs' response is currently due May 24, 2019. The instant extension is requested because Plaintiffs' counsel unexpectedly had a trial run three days longer than expected, and as a result, requires additional time to prepare the response Opposition to Defendants' Motion. This request for an extension of time is not sought for any improper purpose or other purpose of delay. It is further requested that the deadline to file Defendant's Reply be extended as well.

Upon agreement by and between all parties hereto as set forth herein, the undersigned respectfully requests this Court grant an extension of time, up to and including May 29, 2019, for Plaintiff to file an Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. 47], and to grant an extension of time, up to and including June 14, 2019 for Defendant to file a Reply to Plaintiff's response Opposition.

DATED this 24th day of May 2019. DATED this 24th, day of May 2019. CALLISTER LAW GROUP STRUCK LOVE BOJANOWSKI & ACEDO, PLC /s/ Mitchell S. Bisson /s/ Jacob B. Lee Matthew Q. Callister, Esq. Rachel Love, Esq. Nevada Bar No.: 1396 Jacob B. Lee, Esq. Mitchell S. Bisson, Esq. 3100 West Ray Road, Suite 300 Nevada Bar No.: 11920 Chandler, Arizona 85226 Callister Law Group RLove@strucklove.com 330 E. Charleston Blvd., Suite 100 JLee@strucklove.com Las Vegas, NV 89104 Attorneys for Defendant Attorneys for Plaintiff Corrections Corporation of America-CoreCivic

ORDER

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer