Steinmetz v. Brinker International, Inc., 2:18-cv-00981-JCM-PAL. (2018)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20180827a67
Visitors: 7
Filed: Aug. 24, 2018
Latest Update: Aug. 24, 2018
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT (First Request) JAMES C. MAHAN , District Judge . Plaintiff Eric L. Steinmetz ("Plaintiff") and Defendant Brinker International, Inc. d/b/a Chili's Grill & Bar ("Brinker") (together, the "Parties") hereby stipulate and agree, subject to this Court's approval, that Plaintiff shall have an additional fourteen (14) days to file and serve a response to Brinker's Motion to Dismiss the Complaint. Brinker f
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT (First Request) JAMES C. MAHAN , District Judge . Plaintiff Eric L. Steinmetz ("Plaintiff") and Defendant Brinker International, Inc. d/b/a Chili's Grill & Bar ("Brinker") (together, the "Parties") hereby stipulate and agree, subject to this Court's approval, that Plaintiff shall have an additional fourteen (14) days to file and serve a response to Brinker's Motion to Dismiss the Complaint. Brinker fi..
More
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT
(First Request)
JAMES C. MAHAN, District Judge.
Plaintiff Eric L. Steinmetz ("Plaintiff") and Defendant Brinker International, Inc. d/b/a Chili's Grill & Bar ("Brinker") (together, the "Parties") hereby stipulate and agree, subject to this Court's approval, that Plaintiff shall have an additional fourteen (14) days to file and serve a response to Brinker's Motion to Dismiss the Complaint. Brinker filed its motion on August 9, 2018, and Plaintiff's response is presently due on August 23, 2018.
The Parties request this additional time to continue to address the appropriate venue for this action. For context, three other class actions have been filed against Brinker alleging similar facts and claims in federal courts in California and Florida, and counsel and the parties in each of those matters are engaged in ongoing discussions regarding the appropriate venue for the actions and possible motions for transfer pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404. To accommodate these ongoing discussions, the Parties request a 14-day extension of time for Plaintiff to respond to the motion to dismiss, until and including September 6, 2018. This additional time will further judicial economy by likely avoiding unnecessary motion practice in this jurisdiction.
This is the Parties' first request to extend the time for Plaintiff to respond to Brinker's motion to dismiss. The stipulation is made in good faith, is not interposed for delay, and is not filed for an improper purpose.
ORDER
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle