Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

MUSTIN v. FANDEL, 2:15-cv-01430-JCM-PAL. (2016)

Court: District Court, D. Nevada Number: infdco20160623i19 Visitors: 21
Filed: Jun. 22, 2016
Latest Update: Jun. 22, 2016
Summary: STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE DEADLINES (SECOND REQUEST) JAMES C. MAHAN , District Judge. . IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the parties and their respective counsel of record, that the Defendants, RALPH A. FANDEL and INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, shall have through and including August 26, 2016 (an additional 74 days from the current date) to file a responsive pleading to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, filed on April 20, 2016. This continuance is req
More

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE DEADLINES (SECOND REQUEST)

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the parties and their respective counsel of record, that the Defendants, RALPH A. FANDEL and INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, shall have through and including August 26, 2016 (an additional 74 days from the current date) to file a responsive pleading to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, filed on April 20, 2016. This continuance is requested to allow the time necessary for the Order to be entered in Alaska Probate Court, which will in turn resolve this litigation.

IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the parties and their respective counsel of record, that Plaintiffs and RALPH A. FANDEL shall have through and including August 26, 2016 (an additional 74 days from the pending dates) to file a responsive pleading to Defendant, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE'S Motion for Summary Judgment, filed on April 18, 2016. The failure to file a responsive pleading was based on the belief that the action was resolved on or before the dispositive motion deadline.

IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the parties and their respective counsel of record, that the parties shall have through and including August 26, 2016 (an additional 74 days from the current pending date) to file a Joint Pretrial Order. This is the second stipulation for an extension of time to file oppositions to Motions for Summary Judgment and to file a Joint Pretrial 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