Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Whittum v. Acceptance Now, 2:18-cv-01574-JAD-PAL. (2018)

Court: District Court, D. Nevada Number: infdco20180924b24 Visitors: 14
Filed: Sep. 21, 2018
Latest Update: Sep. 21, 2018
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE A RESPONSIVE PLEADING [SECOND REQUEST] PEGGY A. LEEN , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff ROXANNE WHITTUM, individually and on behalf of all and others similarly situated ("Plaintiff") and Defendant RENT-A-CENTER, WEST, INC. d/b/a ACCEPTANCE NOW WEST, LLC 1 ("Defendant" or "RAC"), by and through their respective counsel of record, hereby request that the Court extend the deadline for Defendant to file its first responsive pleading, which is currently
More

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE A RESPONSIVE PLEADING [SECOND REQUEST]

Plaintiff ROXANNE WHITTUM, individually and on behalf of all and others similarly situated ("Plaintiff") and Defendant RENT-A-CENTER, WEST, INC. d/b/a ACCEPTANCE NOW WEST, LLC1 ("Defendant" or "RAC"), by and through their respective counsel of record, hereby request that the Court extend the deadline for Defendant to file its first responsive pleading, which is currently set for September 24, 2018, for a period of 14 days, until October 8, 2018. This is the second stipulation for an extension of time to file the first responsive pleading. Any and all defenses are preserved and retained and that no defense is waived by this request. Specifically, Defendant preserves its right to compel arbitration, which the Parties agree is expressly preserved and not waived.

This request is made in good faith and not to cause unnecessary delay as Defendant has identified the existence of an Arbitration Agreement that it contends covers the claims at issue in this matter. The Parties are currently working in good faith to discuss this case and the issues related to Defendant's contention that this matter is subject to arbitration. As a result, the extension requested is for a limited and reasonable amount of time to provide the Parties with the opportunity to fully and properly discuss these issues, as well as others related to the allegations of the Complaint.

IS SO ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. Plaintiff incorrectly identified RAC as Acceptance Now.
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