Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

QUICK v. CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA, EX REL. LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, 2:16-cv-01554-RFB-NJK. (2017)

Court: District Court, D. Nevada Number: infdco20171102h95 Visitors: 9
Filed: Nov. 01, 2017
Latest Update: Nov. 01, 2017
Summary: STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [ECF No. 27] [THIRD REQUEST] RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II , District Judge . The parties, by and through their counsel, hereby stipulate to extend the time by which Plaintiff must respond to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No.: 27] from October 27, 2017 to October 30, 2017. Pursuant to LR 6-1, and LR 26-4, this is Plaintiff's third request, which is not made in bad faith nor for pu
More

STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [ECF No. 27]

[THIRD REQUEST]

The parties, by and through their counsel, hereby stipulate to extend the time by which Plaintiff must respond to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No.: 27] from October 27, 2017 to October 30, 2017. Pursuant to LR 6-1, and LR 26-4, this is Plaintiff's third request, which is not made in bad faith nor for purposes of delay. Aside from this case, in three other cases, Plaintiff's counsel was in mediation Friday, during Nevada Day, and could not finalize filing the document. Nonetheless, it was filed on Monday, October 30, 2017. Based on the preceding, the parties respectfully believe good cause exists for an extension of time. This extension is made in good faith, and not for purposes of delay.

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