Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

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

Court: District Court, D. Nevada Number: infdco20170726f89 Visitors: 24
Filed: Jul. 24, 2017
Latest Update: Jul. 24, 2017
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR DEFENDANTS ZUFFA, LLC AND DANA WHITE TO FILE REPLIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS AND REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE (First Request) JENNIFER A. DORSEY , District Judge . Pursuant to Local Rules IA 6-1, 6-2 and LR 7-1, the undersigned counsel of record for Plaintiff Mark Hunt and Defendants Zuffa, LLC and Dana White hereby STIPULATE to extend the time for these Defendants to file a combined Reply in support of their Motion to Dismiss First Amended C
More

STIPULATION AND ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR DEFENDANTS ZUFFA, LLC AND DANA WHITE TO FILE REPLIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS AND REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

(First Request)

Pursuant to Local Rules IA 6-1, 6-2 and LR 7-1, the undersigned counsel of record for Plaintiff Mark Hunt and Defendants Zuffa, LLC and Dana White hereby STIPULATE to extend the time for these Defendants to file a combined Reply in support of their Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 71) (the "Motion") and corresponding Request for Judicial Notice (ECF No. 73) (the "Request"). Defendants filed their Motion and Request on June 26, 2017; and Plaintiff filed his Oppositions to the Motion (ECF No. 88) and Request (ECF No. 89) on July 17, 2017. Defendants' Replies are currently due on July 24, 2017. If approved, the forgoing parties have agreed to a three-day extension to file the Replies, which would make them due on July 27, 2017. This is the first stipulation seeking to extend the Reply deadline.

Defendants submit that good cause exists to approve the requested stipulation as their lead counsel with responsibility for drafting the Reply briefs is participating in a three-day evidentiary hearing this week before the Honorable Elizabeth Gonzalez in Case No. A-12-656710-B, which has necessarily limited the amount of time to get the Reply briefs completed. The parties submit that the short extension requested herein is not for purposes of delay and should not interfere with any contemplated hearing on this matter.

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