McINTOSH v. CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, 2:17-cv-00490-JAD-NJK. (2017)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20170309f10
Visitors: 3
Filed: Mar. 08, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 08, 2017
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND TIME FOR PLAINITFFS TO FILE RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS (First Request) JENNIFER A. DORSEY , District Judge . IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED between Plaintiffs, Melissa Marie Mcintosh, individual and natural parent and guardian of minor Anthony Tyler Harris ("Plaintiffs") and Defendants, Clark County School District, Pat Skorkowsky, Joseph Petrie, Jamie Gilbert, and Anthony Derby ("Defendants") by and through their attorneys of record, to extend the deadline for
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND TIME FOR PLAINITFFS TO FILE RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS (First Request) JENNIFER A. DORSEY , District Judge . IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED between Plaintiffs, Melissa Marie Mcintosh, individual and natural parent and guardian of minor Anthony Tyler Harris ("Plaintiffs") and Defendants, Clark County School District, Pat Skorkowsky, Joseph Petrie, Jamie Gilbert, and Anthony Derby ("Defendants") by and through their attorneys of record, to extend the deadline for P..
More
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND TIME FOR PLAINITFFS TO FILE RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS
(First Request)
JENNIFER A. DORSEY, District Judge.
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED between Plaintiffs, Melissa Marie Mcintosh, individual and natural parent and guardian of minor Anthony Tyler Harris ("Plaintiffs") and Defendants, Clark County School District, Pat Skorkowsky, Joseph Petrie, Jamie Gilbert, and Anthony Derby ("Defendants") by and through their attorneys of record, to extend the deadline for Plaintiffs to file their response to Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 5] up to and including March 22, 2017. An extension is necessary to allow Plaintiffs sufficient time to review the motion and the extensive legal authorities contained therein and appropriately respond. Additionally, Plaintiffs' law firm is currently preparing for a trial beginning on March 13, 2017. Defendants do not object to the extension. This is the parties first request for an extension and this stipulation is submitted in good faith without the purpose of undue delay.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
