Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Opromollo v. Mandalay Corp., 2:17-cv-01409-VCF. (2018)

Court: District Court, D. Nevada Number: infdco20180621e05 Visitors: 7
Filed: Jun. 20, 2018
Latest Update: Jun. 20, 2018
Summary: STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR DEFENDANT TO FILE REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST REQUEST) CAM FERENBACH , Magistrate Judge . Pursuant to Local Rules IA 6-1 and 7-1, Plaintiff PAUL OPROMOLLO ("Plaintiff") and Defendant MANDALAY CORP. d/b/a MANDALAY BAY RESORT AND CASINO ("Defendant"), by and through their respective counsel, do hereby stipulate and agree to an extension to the deadline for Defendant to file a Reply in support of its Motion for Summary Judgm
More

STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR DEFENDANT TO FILE REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(FIRST REQUEST)

Pursuant to Local Rules IA 6-1 and 7-1, Plaintiff PAUL OPROMOLLO ("Plaintiff") and Defendant MANDALAY CORP. d/b/a MANDALAY BAY RESORT AND CASINO ("Defendant"), by and through their respective counsel, do hereby stipulate and agree to an extension to the deadline for Defendant to file a Reply in support of its Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 28) which is currently due on July 9, 2018. The parties agree to an extension of one week, up to and including July 16, 2018. This is the first stipulation for an extension of time to file the reply brief.

This Stipulation is made in good faith and not for purposes of delay as Defense Counsel will be on a pre-planned vacation when Plaintiff's opposition is due.

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