Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

QUICK v. CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA, EX. REL. LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, 2:16-cv-01554-RFB-NJK. (2017)

Court: District Court, D. Nevada Number: infdco20171025g80 Visitors: 4
Filed: Oct. 24, 2017
Latest Update: Oct. 24, 2017
Summary: STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [ECF No.27] [SECOND REQUEST] RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II , District Judge . The parties, by and through their counsel, hereby stipulate to extend the time by which Plaintiff must respond to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No.: 27] from October 10, 2017 to October 27, 2017. Pursuant to LR 6-1, and LR 26-4, this is Plaintiff's first request, which is not made in bad faith nor for pur
More

STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [ECF No.27] [SECOND REQUEST]

The parties, by and through their counsel, hereby stipulate to extend the time by which Plaintiff must respond to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No.: 27] from October 10, 2017 to October 27, 2017. Pursuant to LR 6-1, and LR 26-4, this is Plaintiff's first request, which is not made in bad faith nor for purposes of delay. Aside from this case, in three other cases, Plaintiff's counsel has had two mediations, and an emergency hearing in state court. Based on the preceding, the parties respectfully believe good cause exists for an extension of time. This extension is made in good faith, and not for purposes of delay.

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