Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

ELAINE GO, an individual, Plaintiff, v. CLARK COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Nevada; TED LENDIS, an individual; SHAWN MCCRARY, an individual; MARCI HENSON, an individual; LETTY BONILLA, an individual, and SANDRA JEANTETE, an individual Defendants.

RICHARD BOULWARE II, United States District Judge.

STEVEN B. WOLFSON DISTRICT ATTORNEY, SCOTT R. DAVIS Attorneys for Defendants Clark County, Ted Lendis, Shawn McCrary, Marci Henson, Letty Bonilla, and Sandra Jeantete.

RICHARD HARRIS LAW FIRM, BURKE HUBER, ESQ. Attorneys for Plaintiff Elaine Go.

STIPULATION AND TO EXTEND DEFENDANTS' TIME TO REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE (# 93)

RICHARD BOULWARE II, United States District Judge.

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between Defendants, through their counsel, Scott Davis, Deputy District Attorney, of the Clark County District Attorney's Office, Civil Division, and Plaintiff, through her counsel, Burke Huber, of the Richard Harris Law Firm, that Defendants' counsel shall have an extension to and including November 5, 2021, to file a Reply to Plaintiff's Response [Doc. # 93] to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 78).

The Stipulation is being submitted and based on the following:

1. On July 8, 2021, Defendants filed under seal its Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc # 78] along with Five (5) volumes of exhibits (Nos. I-V) [Doc # 79-83].

2. On October 5, 2021, Plaintiff submitted to this Court a motion seeking an extension of time to respond to the Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF # 92). That motion was not opposed by Defendants and was granted by the Court. (ECF # 94).

3. On October 6, 2021, Plaintiff' filed the response to the Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 93).

4. Defendants' counsel has been out of the state for the last two weeks and an extension, in good faith, is sought on this basis. Agreement was reached between counsel for the parties that Defendants' may have up to and including November 5, 2021, within which to submits their Reply to Plaintiff's Response [Doc # 93].

5. This request is made in good faith and not for the purpose of delay.

6. This is Defendants' first request for an extension of time with regard to its Reply.

ORDER

IT IS SO ORDERED:

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

Elaine Go v. Clark Cnty.
(Nov 1, 2021)