Filed: May 24, 2018
Latest Update: May 24, 2018
Summary: ERRATA TO STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE DATE TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT [#65] AND MOTION TO STRIKE TRANSCRIPTS [#66] UNTIL JUNE 22, 2018 CHANGING DUE DATE FOR DEFENDANTS' REPLY TO JULY 22, 2018 ANDREW P. GORDON , District Judge . IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between PLAINTIFF, HELEN ARMSTRONG, by and through counsel, Joel F. Hansen of Cooper Levenson, P.A., and DEFENDANTS, TERRY REYNOLDS, STEVE GEORGE, JESS LANKFORD, and LARA PELLEGRINI, b
Summary: ERRATA TO STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE DATE TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT [#65] AND MOTION TO STRIKE TRANSCRIPTS [#66] UNTIL JUNE 22, 2018 CHANGING DUE DATE FOR DEFENDANTS' REPLY TO JULY 22, 2018 ANDREW P. GORDON , District Judge . IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between PLAINTIFF, HELEN ARMSTRONG, by and through counsel, Joel F. Hansen of Cooper Levenson, P.A., and DEFENDANTS, TERRY REYNOLDS, STEVE GEORGE, JESS LANKFORD, and LARA PELLEGRINI, by..
More
ERRATA TO STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE DATE TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT [#65] AND MOTION TO STRIKE TRANSCRIPTS [#66] UNTIL JUNE 22, 2018 CHANGING DUE DATE FOR DEFENDANTS' REPLY TO JULY 22, 2018
ANDREW P. GORDON, District Judge.
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between PLAINTIFF, HELEN ARMSTRONG, by and through counsel, Joel F. Hansen of Cooper Levenson, P.A., and DEFENDANTS, TERRY REYNOLDS, STEVE GEORGE, JESS LANKFORD, and LARA PELLEGRINI, by and through counsel, Adam Paul Laxalt, Attorney, General, Deputy Attorney General Vivienne Rakowsky, Deputy Attorney General Peter Keegan, that the date for Plaintiff to respond to the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint [#65] and Motion to Strike Transcripts [#66] will be Friday, June 22, 2018. The parties further agree and stipulate that Defendants shall have until July 22, 2018 to respond to the Plaintiff's Opposition to these motions.
Good cause exists to continue the date to respond to the Defendants' Motions because it was originally anticipated that Plaintiff would only need to respond to one motion, but the additional motion which Plaintiff will have to respond to will require much more time, which must be expended during the same period. Defendants have no objection to the granting of this extra time. COOPER LEVENSON, P.A.
ORDER
IT IS SO ORDERED.
