Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

TABLIZO v. CITY OF LAS VEGAS, 2:14-cv-00763-APG-VCF. (2015)

Court: District Court, D. Nevada Number: infdco20151130925 Visitors: 5
Filed: Sep. 29, 2015
Latest Update: Sep. 29, 2015
Summary: STIPULATION AND REQUEST TO EXTEND DEFENDANT'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (First Request) ANDREW P. GORDON , District Judge . IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between Plaintiff CELY TABLIZO, by and through her attorney KIRK T. KENNEDY, ESQ., and the Defendant CITY OF LAS VEGAS, by and through its attorney JACK O. ESLINGER, ESQ., Deputy City Attorney, that the parties request that this Court extend the deadline for the City of Las Veg
More

STIPULATION AND REQUEST TO EXTEND DEFENDANT'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(First Request)

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between Plaintiff CELY TABLIZO, by and through her attorney KIRK T. KENNEDY, ESQ., and the Defendant CITY OF LAS VEGAS, by and through its attorney JACK O. ESLINGER, ESQ., Deputy City Attorney, that the parties request that this Court extend the deadline for the City of Las Vegas to reply to Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment from October 3, 2015, to October 15, 2015, a two-week extension. This is the first request by stipulation to extend this deadline.

The purpose of this extension is due to the City of Las Vegas' counsel assisting the criminal division attorneys of the City Attorney's office in the Las Vegas Municipal Court with scheduled trials and bond matters due to the office being extremely short-staffed.

This Request for an extension of time is not sought for any improper purpose or other purpose of delay. Rather, it is sought by the parties solely for the purpose of allowing sufficient time for the City to file its reply in this case due to the extra duties required of City's counsel.

The requested modification will not alter the date of any event or any deadline already fixed by Court order.

WHEREFORE, the parties respectfully request that this Court extend the deadline to file The City's Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment to October 15, 2015.

ORDER

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