SHANNON v. DECKER, 17-CV-875-KAD-GWF. (2017)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20170714f03
Visitors: 32
Filed: Jul. 13, 2017
Latest Update: Jul. 13, 2017
Summary: STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME FOR DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT GEORGE FOLEY, Jr. , Magistrate Judge . Defendants Joseph (JD) Decker, Steve George, and Donald Soderberg (Defendants) by and through their counsel Nevada Attorney General Adam Paul Laxalt and Senior Deputy Attorney General Sarah A. Bradley and Plaintiffs Joseph Shannon, Penny Lucille Behrens, Christopher Robert Braggs, and Jose Lopez Gomez by and through their counsel Leon Greenberg, Esq.
Summary: STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME FOR DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT GEORGE FOLEY, Jr. , Magistrate Judge . Defendants Joseph (JD) Decker, Steve George, and Donald Soderberg (Defendants) by and through their counsel Nevada Attorney General Adam Paul Laxalt and Senior Deputy Attorney General Sarah A. Bradley and Plaintiffs Joseph Shannon, Penny Lucille Behrens, Christopher Robert Braggs, and Jose Lopez Gomez by and through their counsel Leon Greenberg, Esq.,..
More
STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME FOR DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
GEORGE FOLEY, Jr., Magistrate Judge.
Defendants Joseph (JD) Decker, Steve George, and Donald Soderberg (Defendants) by and through their counsel Nevada Attorney General Adam Paul Laxalt and Senior Deputy Attorney General Sarah A. Bradley and Plaintiffs Joseph Shannon, Penny Lucille Behrens, Christopher Robert Braggs, and Jose Lopez Gomez by and through their counsel Leon Greenberg, Esq., James P. Kemp, Esq., and Jason D. Mills, Esq., hereby stipulate and agree that Defendants have until Tuesday, August 1, 2017 to file their response to Plaintiffs' First Amended Class Action Complaint. In consideration for Plaintiffs' agreement, Defendants agree not to assert any defense based upon failure to effectuate proper service of process. This is the first request for additional time for Defendants' response. This extension of time is not made for any dilatory or delaying tactic and is necessary in order to allow Defendants time to prepare their response.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
