Rowe v. Naphcare Inc., 2:18-cv-00568-RFB-CWH. (2018)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20180425d88
Visitors: 9
Filed: Apr. 24, 2018
Latest Update: Apr. 24, 2018
Summary: STIPULATION AND (PROPOSED) ORDER TO EXTEND TIME FOR DEFENDANT TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT CARL W. HOFFMAN , Magistrate Judge . IT IS STIPULATED between Plaintiff Steven M. Rowe and Defendants by and through their respective counsel, and pursuant to LR 7-1, that the time for Defendant to answer Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. 1) is hereby extended by forty-five days, or to June 7, 2018, to complete services on all Defendants. IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED between the parties that this st
Summary: STIPULATION AND (PROPOSED) ORDER TO EXTEND TIME FOR DEFENDANT TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT CARL W. HOFFMAN , Magistrate Judge . IT IS STIPULATED between Plaintiff Steven M. Rowe and Defendants by and through their respective counsel, and pursuant to LR 7-1, that the time for Defendant to answer Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. 1) is hereby extended by forty-five days, or to June 7, 2018, to complete services on all Defendants. IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED between the parties that this sti..
More
STIPULATION AND (PROPOSED) ORDER TO EXTEND TIME FOR DEFENDANT TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT
CARL W. HOFFMAN, Magistrate Judge.
IT IS STIPULATED between Plaintiff Steven M. Rowe and Defendants by and through their respective counsel, and pursuant to LR 7-1, that the time for Defendant to answer Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. 1) is hereby extended by forty-five days, or to June 7, 2018, to complete services on all Defendants.
IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED between the parties that this stipulated extension of time does not operate as any admission or waiver of any claim or defense by Plaintiff or Defendant.
ORDER
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
