Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Venetian Casino Resort, LLC v. Enwave Las Vegas LLC, 2:19-cv-01197-JCM-DJA. (2019)

Court: District Court, D. Nevada Number: infdco20191104822 Visitors: 4
Filed: Oct. 29, 2019
Latest Update: Oct. 29, 2019
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO COUNTERCLAIMS AND MOTION TO INTERVENE (SECOND/FIRST REQUEST) JAMES C. MAHAN , District Judge . Plaintiff-Counterdefendant VENETIAN CASINO RESORTS, LLC ("Venetian"), a Nevada limited liability company, and Counterdefendant INTERFACE GROUP-NEVADA, INC. (Interface"), by and through their attorneys of record, Michael N. Feder, Esq. of Dickinson Wright, PLLC and Peter Guirguis, Esq. and Scott Klein, Esq. of Mintz Gold, LLP, Defendant-Countercla
More

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO COUNTERCLAIMS AND MOTION TO INTERVENE

(SECOND/FIRST REQUEST)

Plaintiff-Counterdefendant VENETIAN CASINO RESORTS, LLC ("Venetian"), a Nevada limited liability company, and Counterdefendant INTERFACE GROUP-NEVADA, INC. (Interface"), by and through their attorneys of record, Michael N. Feder, Esq. of Dickinson Wright, PLLC and Peter Guirguis, Esq. and Scott Klein, Esq. of Mintz Gold, LLP, Defendant-Counterclaimant ENWAVE LAS VEGAS LLC ("Enwave"), a Delaware limited liability company, by and through its attorneys of record, Adam K. Bult, Esq., and Emily A. Ellis, Esq. of Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP, and Proposed Intervenor/Counterclaimant Grand Canal Shops II, LLC ("GCS"), a Delaware limited liability company, by and through their attorneys of record, Nicholas J. Santoro, Esq. and James E. Whitmire, Esq. of Santoro Whitmire hereby stipulate and agree that the time for Venetian and Interface to respond to Enwave's Counterclaims and GCS's Motion to Intervene (filed on October 9, 2019) is extended to November 26, 2019. This is the second request to extend the deadline for Venetian and Interface to respond to Enwave's Counterclaims and this is the first request to extend the deadline for Venetian and Interface to respond to Proposed Intervenor/Counterclaimants Motion to Intervene and Counterclaims and the parties submit that good cause exists for this extension and that it is not intended for purposes of delay.

ORDER

Having reviewed the stipulation of the parties, and good cause appearing,

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