Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Berry v. Desert Palace, Inc., 2:17-cv-00019-GMN-PAL. (2017)

Court: District Court, D. Nevada Number: infdco20171027982 Visitors: 7
Filed: Oct. 09, 2017
Latest Update: Oct. 09, 2017
Summary: STIPULATION FOR PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST FOR AN ORDER TO EXTEND DEADLINE FOR PLAINTIFFS TO FILE A RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SEVER PLAINTIFF WILLIAM J. BERRY, JR. [ECF NO. 29] (Second Request) PEGGY A. LEEN , Magistrate Judge . TO: THE COURT, ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD. Plaintiffs William J. Berry, Jr., Cynthia Falls, and Shane Kaufmann, and defendant Desert Palace, Inc. d/b/a Caesars Palace, by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby agree to a second extension of ti
More

STIPULATION FOR PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST FOR AN ORDER TO EXTEND DEADLINE FOR PLAINTIFFS TO FILE A RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SEVER PLAINTIFF WILLIAM J. BERRY, JR. [ECF NO. 29]

(Second Request)

TO: THE COURT, ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD.

Plaintiffs William J. Berry, Jr., Cynthia Falls, and Shane Kaufmann, and defendant Desert Palace, Inc. d/b/a Caesars Palace, by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby agree to a second extension of time for Plaintiffs to respond to Defendant's motion to sever the claims of Plaintiff William J. Berry, Jr. [ECF No. 29] (motion filed on September 15, 2017). Under FRCP, the local rules, and a prior extension, Plaintiffs' response is currently due the date of this filing, October 9, 2017. This second extension is being requested by Plaintiffs' counsel to allow the parties to continue their discussions regarding setting up and scheduling a mediation session and a potential stay of the case pending mediation.

Accordingly, in the interest of minimizing attorneys' fees and costs and encouraging professional courtesy for extensions and settlement discussions, the parties are respectfully requesting a second brief extension on Plaintiffs' deadline to respond to ECF No. 29. Upon finalizing the details for the mediation session, the parties will report the same to the Court and may request a stay of litigation as to ECF No. 29. In the event the parties decide against mediation, the parties agree that Plaintiffs' deadline to respond to ECF No. 29 should be October 19, 2017.

The parties have agreed to request Court approval of Plaintiffs' oppositional response time to and including October 19, 2017. This extension will not unduly delay this matter in any way.

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