CONSOLIDATED FOR PURPOSES OF DISCOVERY AND TRIAL WITH:

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND BRIEFING DEADLINES FOR DEFENDANTS HI-TECH SECURITY AND WILLIAM ROSEBERRY'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT (ECF NO. 79); MOTION FOR JOINDER OF JACOB WYMAN AS COMPULSORY PLAINTIFF (ECF NO. 78); AND EMERGENT MOTION TO STAY DEADLINE FOR FILING JOINT PRETRIAL ORDER (ECF NO. 79)

GEORGE FOLEY, JR., Magistrate Judge.

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED between Plaintiffs JENNIFER WYMAN, individually; BEAR WYMAN, a minor, by and through his natural parent, JENNIFER WYMAN; and JENNIFER WYMAN and VIVIAN SOOF, as Joint Special Administrators of the ESTATE OF CHARLES WYMAN, through their attorneys of record, Dennis M. Prince, Esq., and Kevin T. Strong, Esq. of EGLET PRINCE and Gabriel A. Martinez, Esq. and Dillon G. Coil, Esq. of GREENMAN GOLDBERG RAMY & MARTINEZ; Plaintiff WESCO INSURANCE COMPANY, through its attorneys of record, Peter Dubowsky, Esq. and Amanda Vogler-Heaton, Esq.; Defendants HI-TECH SECURITY, INC. and WILLIAM ROSEBERRY, through their attorneys of record, STEVEN T. JAFFE, ESQ., MONTE HALL, ESQ., and WALTER F. FICK, ESQ. of HALL JAFFE & CLAYTON, LLP; and Defendant SMART INDUSTRIES CORPORATION dba SMART INDUSTRIES, CORP., by and through its attorneys of record, David Barron, Esq., William H. Pruitt, Esq., and Joseph R. Meservy, Esq. of BARRON & PRUITT, LLP, that the deadline for the Wyman Plaintiffs to file their Responses to Defendants Hi-Tech Security, Inc.'s and William Roseberry's: (1) Motion for Leave to File a Third-Party Complaint for Contractual Indemnity Against Nickels and Dimes Incorporated (ECF No. 77); (2) Motion for Joinder of Jacob Wyman as a Compulsory Plaintiff; or, in the Alternative, Motion for Leave to File Third-Party Complaint Against Jacob Wyman; or, in the Alternative, Motion to File Complaint for Interpleader (ECF No. 78); and (3) Emergent Motion to Stay Deadline for Filing Joint Pretrial Order (ECF No. 79) and Responses to Defendant Smart Industries Corp.'s respective Joinders thereto (ECF Nos. 87, 88, and 89) shall be extended from May 28, 2019, to June 7, 2019. Defendants Hi-Tech Security and William Roseberry filed their respective Motions on May 14, 2019.

IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that Defendants Hi-Tech Security, William Roseberry, and Smart Industries Corp. shall have until June 17, 2019 to file their Reply Briefs in support of their respective Motions and Joinders thereto.

The purpose for requesting this brief extension is that the Wyman Plaintiffs' counsel handling the briefing has been involved in the drafting of several briefs related to a trial in the Eighth Judicial District Court entitled Evans-Waiau v. Tate, Case No. A-16-736457-C over the course of the last two weeks. The Wyman Plaintiffs' counsel has also been preparing briefing for a matter pending in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Given the complexities of the various legal arguments presented in Hi-Tech Security and William Roseberry's Motions, the Wyman Plaintiffs respectfully request additional time to address the legal issues presented.

In light of the same and pending the Court's approval, counsel for Defendants/Movants Hi-Tech Security and William Roseberry has graciously agreed to a ten-day extension, through and until June 7, 2019, for the Wyman Plaintiffs to file their Responses to: (1) Motion for Leave to File a Third-Party Complaint for Contractual Indemnity Against Nickels and Dimes Incorporated (ECF No. 77); (2) Motion for Joinder of Jacob Wyman as a Compulsory Plaintiff; or, in the Alternative, Motion for Leave to File Third-Party Complaint Against Jacob Wyman; or, in the Alternative, Motion to File Complaint for Interpleader (ECF No. 78); and (3) Emergent Motion to Stay Deadline for Filing Joint Pretrial Order (ECF No. 79). Defendants Hi-Tech Security, William Roseberry, and Smart Industries Corp. shall have until June 17, 2019 to file their Reply Briefs in support of their respective Motions and Joinders thereto.

This is the first extension requested in connection with the underlying motions. Therefore, the parties respectfully request this Court to approve the foregoing stipulation.

ORDER

IT IS SO ORDERED.