Filed: Feb. 09, 2016
Latest Update: Feb. 09, 2016
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND TIME FOR DEFENDANTS TO REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO THE HENDERSON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS (Second Request) ANDREW P. GORDON , District Judge . COME NOW Plaintiff Vanessa Kelley and Defendants City of Henderson, Henderson Police Chief Patrick Moers, Detective Mark Hosaka and Detective Chad Mitchell (collectively referred to as "Henderson Defendants"), by and through their respective counsel of record, pursuant to LR 6-1, and hereby stipulate, agre
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND TIME FOR DEFENDANTS TO REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO THE HENDERSON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS (Second Request) ANDREW P. GORDON , District Judge . COME NOW Plaintiff Vanessa Kelley and Defendants City of Henderson, Henderson Police Chief Patrick Moers, Detective Mark Hosaka and Detective Chad Mitchell (collectively referred to as "Henderson Defendants"), by and through their respective counsel of record, pursuant to LR 6-1, and hereby stipulate, agree..
More
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND TIME FOR DEFENDANTS TO REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO THE HENDERSON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS (Second Request)
ANDREW P. GORDON, District Judge.
COME NOW Plaintiff Vanessa Kelley and Defendants City of Henderson, Henderson Police Chief Patrick Moers, Detective Mark Hosaka and Detective Chad Mitchell (collectively referred to as "Henderson Defendants"), by and through their respective counsel of record, pursuant to LR 6-1, and hereby stipulate, agree and make joint application to extend the time for the Henderson Defendants to file their Reply(ies) to Plaintiff's Opposition (Doc. 31) to the Henderson Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 17). The time to file such Reply(ies) to the Plaintiff's Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 17) are currently due on Thursday, February 11, 2016 pursuant to the Stipulation and Order entered on the First Request for Extension. (Doc. 36)
The stipulating parties respectfully request a seven (7) day extension up to and including Thursday, February 18, 2016, for the Henderson Defendants' above-referenced to file their Reply(ies).
The stipulating parties submit that good cause exists for this extension. Counsel inadvertently included Thursday February 11, as the due date in the First Request, instead of Thursday, February 18, 2016 based upon the Henderson Defendants' counsel's schedule between the date of filing of the Plaintiff's Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 31) and the requested date. As a result an extension up to and including February 18, 2016 is sought in this request in order to provide for adequate time for counsel to be able to reasonably prepare a complete an appropriately supported Reply(ies) on behalf of the Henderson Defendants and each of them.
Based upon the foregoing, the parties respectfully request that this Court enter its order extending the time for the Henderson Defendants to file their Reply(ies) to Plaintiff's Opposition to the Henderson Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 31), up to and including Thursday, February 18, 2016.
This is the second request for enlargement of time for the Henderson Defendants to file their Reply(ies) to Plaintiff's Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss and it is made in good faith and not for the purposes of delay.
ORDER
IT IS SO ORDERED.
