Konecranes Global Corporation v. Mode Tech (Beijing) Co., 2:18-cv-02015-GMN-NJK. (2019)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20190220d08
Visitors: 6
Filed: Feb. 19, 2019
Latest Update: Feb. 19, 2019
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND BRIEFING SCHEDULE RE: DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO PROPERLY EFFECTUATE SERVICE OF PROCESS GLORIA M. NAVARRO , Chief District Judge . Plaintiff Konecranes Global Corporation ("Konecranes") and Defendant Mode Tech (Beijing) Co., Ltd. ("Mode Tech") hereby agree, stipulate and respectfully request that the Court extend the deadline for Konecranes to respond to Mode Tech's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Properly Effectuate Service of Process (the
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND BRIEFING SCHEDULE RE: DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO PROPERLY EFFECTUATE SERVICE OF PROCESS GLORIA M. NAVARRO , Chief District Judge . Plaintiff Konecranes Global Corporation ("Konecranes") and Defendant Mode Tech (Beijing) Co., Ltd. ("Mode Tech") hereby agree, stipulate and respectfully request that the Court extend the deadline for Konecranes to respond to Mode Tech's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Properly Effectuate Service of Process (the ..
More
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND BRIEFING SCHEDULE RE: DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO PROPERLY EFFECTUATE SERVICE OF PROCESS
GLORIA M. NAVARRO, Chief District Judge.
Plaintiff Konecranes Global Corporation ("Konecranes") and Defendant Mode Tech (Beijing) Co., Ltd. ("Mode Tech") hereby agree, stipulate and respectfully request that the Court extend the deadline for Konecranes to respond to Mode Tech's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Properly Effectuate Service of Process (the "Motion") (ECF No. 30) from February 25, 2019 to March 4, 2019. The parties further agree and respectfully request that the Court extend the time for Mode Tech to file a reply in support of its Motion from March 11, 2019 to March 22, 2019. This is the parties' first request to extend the deadlines.
Both parties request additional time to prepare their respective response and reply briefs in order to have sufficient time to communicate with their respective clients which are both located overseas. The undersigned represent that this stipulation is not designed for purposes of delay. For these reasons, the parties respectfully request that the Court grant the requested extension.
ORDER
IT IS SOORDERED.
Source: Leagle
