Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

NAME INTELLIGENCE, INC. v. McKINNON, 2:10-cv-01202-RCJ-GWF. (2012)

Court: District Court, D. Nevada Number: infdco20120507677
Filed: May 04, 2012
Latest Update: May 04, 2012
Summary: ORDER Motion to Extend Dispositive Motion Deadline (#113) GEORGE FOLEY, Jr., Magistrate Judge. This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Vannozzi's Motion to Continue the Dispositive Motion Deadline (#113), filed on April 25, 2012; Defendant McKinnon's Joinder (#114), filed on April 26, 2012; Defendant Ehlert's Joinder (#116), filed on April 26, 2012; and Plaintiffs' Opposition to Motion to Continue Dispositive Motion Deadline (#117), filed on May 2, 2012. Defendant Vannozzi requests t
More

ORDER

Motion to Extend Dispositive Motion Deadline (#113)

GEORGE FOLEY, Jr., Magistrate Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Vannozzi's Motion to Continue the Dispositive Motion Deadline (#113), filed on April 25, 2012; Defendant McKinnon's Joinder (#114), filed on April 26, 2012; Defendant Ehlert's Joinder (#116), filed on April 26, 2012; and Plaintiffs' Opposition to Motion to Continue Dispositive Motion Deadline (#117), filed on May 2, 2012. Defendant Vannozzi requests the Court extend the dispositive motion deadline until 30 days after the Court rules on Defendant Lybarger's Motion to Dismiss (#109). A hearing on that motion is set for June 21, 2012. Plaintiffs object to the requested extension, arguing that Defendants failed to show good cause for the extension in light of the fact that Defendants previously opposed the Plaintiffs' requested extension of the discovery deadlines. Plaintiffs further argue that if the Court is inclined to extend the dispositive motion deadline based Lybarger's appearance in this case, then all the discovery deadlines should be extended.

The Court finds Defendant Vannozzi has established good cause for the requested extension. Decision on the pending Motion to Dismiss (#109) may effect the content and scope of any potential dispositive motions. The Court will therefore grant Defendant's request and extend the dispositive motion deadline 30 days after decision on Lybarger's Motion to Dismiss (#109). If Lybarger's motion is denied, the Court will schedule a discovery status conference regarding any additional discovery that needs to take place and whether the discovery deadlines, including the dispositive motion and the joint pretrial order deadlines, need to be reset. Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Vannozzi's Motion to Continue the Dispositive Motion Deadline (#113) is granted. The dispositive motion deadlines will be thirty (30) days after decision on Lybarger's Motion to Dismiss (#109).

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