Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

LIK v. MARCHITTO, 2:16-cv-02200-RFB-NJK. (2016)

Court: District Court, D. Nevada Number: infdco20161019d82 Visitors: 8
Filed: Oct. 17, 2016
Latest Update: Oct. 17, 2016
Summary: STIPULATION AND (PROPOSED) ORDER FOR TWO-WEEK EXTENSION OF TIME TO ANSWER OR OTHERWISE RESPOND TO THE COMPLAINT (First Request) NANCY J. KOPPE , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiffs, PETER LIK and PETER LIK IP COMPANY, LLC, and Defendants, RICHARD MARCHITTO and RICHARD MARC GALLERY LLC, by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate and agree to a two-week extension of time up to and including October 31, 2016 for Defendants to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint (ECF N
More

STIPULATION AND (PROPOSED) ORDER FOR TWO-WEEK EXTENSION OF TIME TO ANSWER OR OTHERWISE RESPOND TO THE COMPLAINT

(First Request)

Plaintiffs, PETER LIK and PETER LIK IP COMPANY, LLC, and Defendants, RICHARD MARCHITTO and RICHARD MARC GALLERY LLC, by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate and agree to a two-week extension of time up to and including October 31, 2016 for Defendants to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint (ECF No. 1). This is the first request for an extension of time for Defendants to respond to the Complaint. Good cause exists because counsel for Defendants were only recently retained and counsel requires additional time to investigate the factual background underlying Plaintiffs' claims and therefore effectively respond to the Complaint. Defendants' response is currently due October 17, 2016.

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