Filed: Jan. 06, 2017
Latest Update: Jan. 06, 2017
Summary: STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TIME FOR PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT LVMPD'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF NO. 30) (THIRD REQUEST) JAMES C. MAHAN , District Judge . IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the Plaintiff Sasha Boseke ("Plaintiff'), by and through her attorney of record, Kirk T. Kennedy, Esq., Defendant Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department ("LVMPD"), by and through its attorneys of record, Marquis Aurbach Coffing, and Defendant Solomon Coleman ("Coleman"), by
Summary: STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TIME FOR PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT LVMPD'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF NO. 30) (THIRD REQUEST) JAMES C. MAHAN , District Judge . IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the Plaintiff Sasha Boseke ("Plaintiff'), by and through her attorney of record, Kirk T. Kennedy, Esq., Defendant Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department ("LVMPD"), by and through its attorneys of record, Marquis Aurbach Coffing, and Defendant Solomon Coleman ("Coleman"), by a..
More
STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TIME FOR PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT LVMPD'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF NO. 30) (THIRD REQUEST)
JAMES C. MAHAN, District Judge.
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the Plaintiff Sasha Boseke ("Plaintiff'), by and through her attorney of record, Kirk T. Kennedy, Esq., Defendant Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department ("LVMPD"), by and through its attorneys of record, Marquis Aurbach Coffing, and Defendant Solomon Coleman ("Coleman"), by and through his attorney of record, Jeffrey Gronich, Esq., that the Defendant LVMPD's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 30), filed on October 25, 2016, has a pending due date for a response from Plaintiff by January 13, 2017 (ECF No. 37), however, the parties agree to extend the time for the Plaintiff's response to February 28, 2017.
This is the third request for an extension of time by the Plaintiff to file her response to the motion for summary judgment. This stipulation is being entered into because the parties have resolved this case and are awaiting LVMPD to finalize settlement documents and therefore a response will likely not be necessary.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
