Hartford Fire Insurance Company v. Lexington Insurance Company, 3:18-cv-0432-RCJ-WGC. (2019)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20190122e80
Visitors: 2
Filed: Jan. 18, 2019
Latest Update: Jan. 18, 2019
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DATE BY WHICH HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY SHALL HAVE TO OPPOSE LEXINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY'S MOTION TO DISMISS (FIRST REQUEST) ROBERT C. JONES , District Judge . Plaintiff Hartford Fire Insurance Company ("Hartford") and Defendant Lexington Insurance Company ("Lexington"), by and through their undersigned counsel, stipulate as follows: Hartford filed an Amended Complaint for Declaratory Relief on December 14, 2018, naming Lexington as the sole defendan
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DATE BY WHICH HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY SHALL HAVE TO OPPOSE LEXINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY'S MOTION TO DISMISS (FIRST REQUEST) ROBERT C. JONES , District Judge . Plaintiff Hartford Fire Insurance Company ("Hartford") and Defendant Lexington Insurance Company ("Lexington"), by and through their undersigned counsel, stipulate as follows: Hartford filed an Amended Complaint for Declaratory Relief on December 14, 2018, naming Lexington as the sole defendant..
More
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DATE BY WHICH HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY SHALL HAVE TO OPPOSE LEXINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY'S MOTION TO DISMISS
(FIRST REQUEST)
ROBERT C. JONES, District Judge.
Plaintiff Hartford Fire Insurance Company ("Hartford") and Defendant Lexington Insurance Company ("Lexington"), by and through their undersigned counsel, stipulate as follows:
Hartford filed an Amended Complaint for Declaratory Relief on December 14, 2018, naming Lexington as the sole defendant. (ECF No. 18.) Lexington responded to the Amended Complaint by filing on January 11, 2019, a Motion to Dismiss Hartford's First Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 21.) The current deadline for Hartford to oppose the Motion to Dismiss is January 25, 2019.
Hartford has requested an extension of time to respond until February 8, 2019. Hartford requests this additional time because its counsel has a prearranged vacation scheduled, leaving counsel limited time to address Lexington's Motion. A two-week extension will afford Hartford adequate time to thoroughly research the current law bearing on the issues raised in Lexington's potentially dispositive motion. The Court has not granted any previous extensions.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
