RODRIGUEZ-MALFAVON v. CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, 2:12-CV-01673-APG-PAL. (2015)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20160126i70
Visitors: 4
Filed: Dec. 30, 2015
Latest Update: Dec. 30, 2015
Summary: [PROPOSED] STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND TIME FOR THE PARTIES TO FILE A JOINT PRETRIAL ORDER [FIRST REQUEST] PEGGY A. LEEN , District Judge . Plaintiff, ELENA RODRIGUEZ-MALFAVON and Defendant, CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 1 , by and through their respective counsel of record, do hereby stipulate and agree to extend the current deadline to file a Joint Pretrial Order of January 6, 2016, by an additional 30 days, up to and including February 5, 2016. The parties agree that the instant e
Summary: [PROPOSED] STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND TIME FOR THE PARTIES TO FILE A JOINT PRETRIAL ORDER [FIRST REQUEST] PEGGY A. LEEN , District Judge . Plaintiff, ELENA RODRIGUEZ-MALFAVON and Defendant, CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 1 , by and through their respective counsel of record, do hereby stipulate and agree to extend the current deadline to file a Joint Pretrial Order of January 6, 2016, by an additional 30 days, up to and including February 5, 2016. The parties agree that the instant ex..
More
[PROPOSED] STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND TIME FOR THE PARTIES TO FILE A JOINT PRETRIAL ORDER
[FIRST REQUEST]
PEGGY A. LEEN, District Judge.
Plaintiff, ELENA RODRIGUEZ-MALFAVON and Defendant, CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT1, by and through their respective counsel of record, do hereby stipulate and agree to extend the current deadline to file a Joint Pretrial Order of January 6, 2016, by an additional 30 days, up to and including February 5, 2016.
The parties agree that the instant extension is necessary because the caseload of counsel for both parties during the month of December has not allowed them sufficient time to discuss and come to an agreement on various issues in order to complete the Pretrial Order. The instant extension is also necessary because of previously scheduled time away from the office by counsel for both parties. It is important to note that a trial date has not yet been set in this case, and as such, the trial will not need to be postponed due to the requested extension.
This is the parties' first request for an extension of this deadline and it is sought in good faith and not for the purpose of delay.
Dated: December 29, 2015 Dated: December 29, 2015
Respectfully submitted, Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Richard Segerbloom /s/ Ethan E. Thomas
RICHARD SEGERBLOM, ESQ. BRUCE C. YOUNG, ESQ.
ETHAN D. THOMAS, ESQ.
Attorney for Plaintiff LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
ELENA RODRIGUEZ-MALFAVON
Attorneys for Defendants
CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT,
EDWARD GOLDMAN and ANITA WILBUR
ORDER
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. While not specifically addressed in the Court's Order, Defendants Edward Goldman and Anita Wilbur were effectively dismissed from this action by virtue of the Court's decision on Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. [Doc. #50]. As noted in that Order, the only remaining claim to be resolved at trial is Plaintiff's Title VII retaliation claim pertaining to her time in the Purchasing Department, which by law cannot be asserted against individual Defendants Goldman and Wilbur.
Source: Leagle
