Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

PEREZ v. STATE EX REL. NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 2:15-cv-01572-APG-CWH. (2016)

Court: District Court, D. Nevada Number: infdco20161024a93 Visitors: 18
Filed: Oct. 21, 2016
Latest Update: Oct. 21, 2016
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND TIME (First Request) CARL W. HOFFMAN , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiffs, Victor Perez, as Special Administrator of the Estate of Carlos Perez, deceased; Victor Perez, as Guardian Ad Litem for S.E.P., a minor; and Victor Perez, as Guardian Ad Litem for A.I.P., a minor, by and through counsel Cal Potter; Defendants State of Nevada ex rel. Nevada Department of Corrections, James Greg Cox, Timothy Filson, Dwight Neven, and Ronald Oliver, by and through counsel, Ada
More

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND TIME

(First Request)

Plaintiffs, Victor Perez, as Special Administrator of the Estate of Carlos Perez, deceased; Victor Perez, as Guardian Ad Litem for S.E.P., a minor; and Victor Perez, as Guardian Ad Litem for A.I.P., a minor, by and through counsel Cal Potter; Defendants State of Nevada ex rel. Nevada Department of Corrections, James Greg Cox, Timothy Filson, Dwight Neven, and Ronald Oliver, by and through counsel, Adam Paul Laxalt, Attorney General of the State of Nevada, and Theresa M. Haar, Deputy Attorney General; Defendant Isaiah Smith, by and through counsel Jeffrey Barr; Defendant Jeff Castro, by and through counsel Craig Anderson; and Defendant Raynaldo-John Ramos, by and through counsel, Robert Freeman, hereby stipulate as follows:

On September 29, 2016, a telephonic status conference was held. See ECF No. 74. It was determined that if the matter does not settle at the upcoming status conference, Plaintiffs will have two weeks to file their Amended Complaint. Id. On October 3, 2016, Plaintiffs filed their Amended Complaint. ECF No. 75. All parties hereby stipulate that Defendants will have two weeks from the date of the Settlement Conference to Answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint.

The parties here state that there is good cause for the extension. The parties are scheduling a Settlement Conference in an attempt to resolve this matter, and believe it would conserve judicial resources to extend the time for Defendants to respond to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. The parties have met and conferred on the matter, and stipulate to extend the time to respond to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint until two weeks after the conclusion of the Settlement Conference.

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