Rosenfeld v. NV Energy, Inc., 2:17-cv-03041-JCM-CWH. (2017)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20171226721
Visitors: 8
Filed: Dec. 22, 2017
Latest Update: Dec. 22, 2017
Summary: STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR DEFENDANT TO FILE A RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT [FIRST REQUEST] CARL W. HOFFMAN , Magistrate Judge . The parties, by and through their attorneys of record, hereby stipulate and agree that the time for Defendant to file a response to Plaintiff's Complaint shall be extended two (2) weeks, up to and including Monday, January 22, 2018. Plaintiff filed his Complaint (Jury Trial Demanded) on December 12, 2017 and served Defendant on December 18, 20
Summary: STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR DEFENDANT TO FILE A RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT [FIRST REQUEST] CARL W. HOFFMAN , Magistrate Judge . The parties, by and through their attorneys of record, hereby stipulate and agree that the time for Defendant to file a response to Plaintiff's Complaint shall be extended two (2) weeks, up to and including Monday, January 22, 2018. Plaintiff filed his Complaint (Jury Trial Demanded) on December 12, 2017 and served Defendant on December 18, 201..
More
STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR DEFENDANT TO FILE A RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT
[FIRST REQUEST]
CARL W. HOFFMAN, Magistrate Judge.
The parties, by and through their attorneys of record, hereby stipulate and agree that the time for Defendant to file a response to Plaintiff's Complaint shall be extended two (2) weeks, up to and including Monday, January 22, 2018. Plaintiff filed his Complaint (Jury Trial Demanded) on December 12, 2017 and served Defendant on December 18, 2017.
This extension of time is necessary to accommodate the workload and schedule of Defendant's counsel, is sought in good faith, and is not made for the purposes of delay.
ORDER
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
