Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Acheampong v. Las Vegas Valley Water District, 2:15-cv-00981-RFB-PAL. (2015)

Court: District Court, D. Nevada Number: infdco20150714984 Visitors: 6
Filed: Jul. 13, 2015
Latest Update: Jul. 13, 2015
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS, AND DEFENDANT'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS (Second Request) RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II , District Judge . IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED between the parties by and through their respective counsel, pursuant to LR 6-1, that Plaintiffs have until and including Monday, July 13, 2015, to file their response to Defendant Las Vegas Valley Water District's ("LVVWD") Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #7) ("Mot
More

STIPULATION AND ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS, AND DEFENDANT'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS (Second Request)

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED between the parties by and through their respective counsel, pursuant to LR 6-1, that Plaintiffs have until and including Monday, July 13, 2015, to file their response to Defendant Las Vegas Valley Water District's ("LVVWD") Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #7) ("Motion"); and further, that LVVWD has until July 24, 2015, to file its reply in support of the Motion. This Stipulation is entered into for the following reasons:

1. LVVWD filed its Motion on June 3, 2015.

2. On June 23, 2015, the Court entered its Order (Doc. #11) granting an extension of time until June 29, 2015 for filing of Plaintiffs' response, the purpose of which was to permit Plaintiffs to research and brief the complex issues of law raised in the Motion. The Court also granted an extension until July 10, 2015 for filing of Defendants' reply.

3. Attorneys for Plaintiffs have since explored associating additional counsel on this matter, and therefore seek an additional two-week extension of time for filing Plaintiffs' response so as to permit newly-associated counsel to review the pleadings.

4. LVVWD reasonably anticipates that, as a consequence, it will also require an extension of two weeks to prepare and file its reply in support of the Motion.

5. The parties do not seek these extensions of time for purposes of delay.

6. These are the second requests for extensions of time to file the parties' respective response and reply.

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