Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Chemeon Surface Technology, LLC v. Metalast International, Inc., 3:15-cv-00294-MMD-VPC. (2018)

Court: District Court, D. Nevada Number: infdco20180509f63 Visitors: 5
Filed: May 07, 2018
Latest Update: May 07, 2018
Summary: STIPULATION and [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND BRIEFING SCHEDULE [FIRST REQUEST] MIRANDA M. DU , District Judge . Plaintiff/Counter Defendant Chemeon Surface Technology and Counter Defendants Dean S. Meiling and Madylon Meiling (collectively "CHEMEON"), by and through their undersigned counsel, Robert C. Ryan of Holland & Hart, LLP, and Defendants David M. Semas and Greg D. Semas, by and through their undersigned counsel, Michael D. Hoy of Hoy Chrissinger Kimmel Vallas, PC, stipulate and agree
More

STIPULATION and [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND BRIEFING SCHEDULE

[FIRST REQUEST]

Plaintiff/Counter Defendant Chemeon Surface Technology and Counter Defendants Dean S. Meiling and Madylon Meiling (collectively "CHEMEON"), by and through their undersigned counsel, Robert C. Ryan of Holland & Hart, LLP, and Defendants David M. Semas and Greg D. Semas, by and through their undersigned counsel, Michael D. Hoy of Hoy Chrissinger Kimmel Vallas, PC, stipulate and agree as follows:

1. CHEMEON filed its Motion for Reconsideration of Summary Judgment Order on April 24, 2018 [ECF No. 412].

2. Defendants filed their Opposition to the Motion for Reconsideration on May 1, 2018. [ECF No. 413].

3. The current deadline for CHEMEON to file its reply is May 8, 2018.

4. The parties hereby stipulate to a three (3) day extension of the deadline for CHEMEON to file its reply brief. CHEMEON shall have through Friday, May 11, 2018 within which to filed its reply brief.

5. This extension is agreed to and requested from the Court because CHEMEON's counsel primarily tasked with the briefing, Mr. Ryan, was sidelined by a serious medical issue that kept him out of the office from April 26-30, 2018, and continuing to deal with the issue through part of last week.

6. This is the first request for an extension of time to file the reply brief.

7. This request for an extension is made in good faith and not for purposes of delay.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

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