Shane v. Berryhill, 2:16-CV-02263-CWH (2017)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20170726f69
Visitors: 15
Filed: Jul. 21, 2017
Latest Update: Jul. 21, 2017
Summary: JOINT STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY REMAND OF THE CASE OR CROSS-MOTION TO AFFIRM CARL W. HOFFMAN , Magistrate Judge . IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by the parties, through their respective counsel of record, that the time for responding to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment be extended for approximately thirty (30) days from July 21, 2017 to August 20, 2017. This is Defendant's second request for extension. Good cause exists to grant Defendant
Summary: JOINT STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY REMAND OF THE CASE OR CROSS-MOTION TO AFFIRM CARL W. HOFFMAN , Magistrate Judge . IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by the parties, through their respective counsel of record, that the time for responding to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment be extended for approximately thirty (30) days from July 21, 2017 to August 20, 2017. This is Defendant's second request for extension. Good cause exists to grant Defendant'..
More
JOINT STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY REMAND OF THE CASE OR CROSS-MOTION TO AFFIRM
CARL W. HOFFMAN, Magistrate Judge.
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by the parties, through their respective counsel of record, that the time for responding to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment be extended for approximately thirty (30) days from July 21, 2017 to August 20, 2017. This is Defendant's second request for extension. Good cause exists to grant Defendant's request for extension. Counsel for Defendant was involved in a car accident on Wednesday, July 19, 2017 and had to take unanticipated medical leave. Counsel for Defendant apologizes for the belated nature of the request, but did not anticipate taking medical leave resulting from her car accident. Additional time is also required as counsel for Defendant has over 50+ active matters, of which two dispositive motions are required until mid-August. Counsel respectfully requests additional time to respond to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment in order to adequately research, analyze and respond to the issues presented by Plaintiff. Defendant makes this request in good faith with no intention to unduly delay the proceedings. Plaintiff has no objection to the requested relief.
The parties further stipulate that the Court's Scheduling Order shall be modified accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
