Linksmart Wireless Technology, LLC v. Caesars Entertainment Corporation, 2:18-cv-00862-MMD-NJK. (2018)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20180713c76
Visitors: 8
Filed: Jul. 12, 2018
Latest Update: Jul. 12, 2018
Summary: JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR A 30-DAY EXTENSION OF TIME IN WHICH TO ANSWER OR OTHERWISE RESPOND TO COMPLAINT (Second Request) NANCY J. KOPPE , Magistrate Judge . Pursuant to LR IA 6-1, LR IA 6-2, and LR 7-1, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED between Plaintiff Linksmart Wireless Technology, LLC and Defendant Caesars Entertainment Corporation, by and through their undersigned counsel, that Defendant shall have a second 30-day extension of time within which to answer or otherwise re
Summary: JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR A 30-DAY EXTENSION OF TIME IN WHICH TO ANSWER OR OTHERWISE RESPOND TO COMPLAINT (Second Request) NANCY J. KOPPE , Magistrate Judge . Pursuant to LR IA 6-1, LR IA 6-2, and LR 7-1, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED between Plaintiff Linksmart Wireless Technology, LLC and Defendant Caesars Entertainment Corporation, by and through their undersigned counsel, that Defendant shall have a second 30-day extension of time within which to answer or otherwise res..
More
JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR A 30-DAY EXTENSION OF TIME IN WHICH TO ANSWER OR OTHERWISE RESPOND TO COMPLAINT
(Second Request)
NANCY J. KOPPE, Magistrate Judge.
Pursuant to LR IA 6-1, LR IA 6-2, and LR 7-1, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED between Plaintiff Linksmart Wireless Technology, LLC and Defendant Caesars Entertainment Corporation, by and through their undersigned counsel, that Defendant shall have a second 30-day extension of time within which to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint, to and including August 15, 2018,1 and request that the Court enter an Order approving the same.
This second extension is sought because Defendant recently retained new litigation counsel at the law firm Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, who reasonably request additional time to evaluate Defendant's claims and defenses and to prepare Defendant's response to the Complaint. Defendant also seeks this second extension in order to finalize its retention of local counsel in this matter. Defendant has requested only one prior extension from the Court, and this request is made in the interests of justice and not for the purposes of delay.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. Defendant's response was originally due on June 15, 2018. On June 4, 2018, the Court entered an Order approving the parties' first stipulation (Dkt. No. 22), to extend Defendant's deadline to July 16, 2018.
Source: Leagle
