Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

HUNT v. ZUFFA, LLC, 2:17-cv-00085-JAD-CWH. (2017)

Court: District Court, D. Nevada Number: infdco20170317e60 Visitors: 14
Filed: Mar. 15, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 15, 2017
Summary: ORDER GRANTING NUNC PRO TUNC STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO MOTION TO DISMISS [ECF No. 17] JENNIFER A. DORSEY , District Judge . IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between Plaintiff MARK HUNT ("HUNT") and defendants ZUFFA, LLC d/b/a ULTIMATE FIGHTING CHAMPIONSHIP ("ZUFFA") and DANA WHITE ("WHITE"), by and through their respective attorneys of record, as follows: 1. Whereas, on February 28, 2017, WHITE and ZUFFA, collectively ("DEFENDANTS"), filed a Motion to Dismiss the above
More

ORDER GRANTING NUNC PRO TUNC STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO MOTION TO DISMISS

[ECF No. 17]

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between Plaintiff MARK HUNT ("HUNT") and defendants ZUFFA, LLC d/b/a ULTIMATE FIGHTING CHAMPIONSHIP ("ZUFFA") and DANA WHITE ("WHITE"), by and through their respective attorneys of record, as follows:

1. Whereas, on February 28, 2017, WHITE and ZUFFA, collectively ("DEFENDANTS"), filed a Motion to Dismiss the above-referenced action, following HUNT's granting ZUFFA a several-week extension of time to file a first responsive pleading;

2. Whereas, HUNT's opposition to the Motion to Dismiss must be filed on or before March 14, 2017;

3. Whereas, there has been no previous extension of time to file the opposition to DEFENDANTS' Motion to Dismiss;

4. Whereas, the hearing date on this motion is not until May 15, 2017;

5. Whereas, HUNT's counsel represents that the nature and complexity of the issues raised by his complaint on-file in this action and Defendants' Motion to Dismiss warrant additional time to draft an opposition that fairly presents the meritorious legal arguments needed to oppose Defendants' motion to dismiss;

7. Whereas, HUNT's lead counsel, Christina Denning, is currently in a jury trial in the Southern District of California, case number 13-CV-87-LAB (JMA), and will not have an opportunity to meaningfully review and contribute to the final opposition prior to the current date the opposition is due;

Therefore, the parties agree and hereby stipulate:

HUNT's time to file an opposition to DEFENDANTS' Motion to Dismiss shall be extended by seven (7) days, such that his opposition shall now be due on or before March 21, 2017.

ORDER

Based on the parties' stipulation [ECF No. 17] and with good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED NUNC PRO TUNC that the time for plaintiff Mark Hunt to respond to the defendants' motion to dismiss [ECF No. 11] is EXTENDED to March 21, 2017.

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