Plank v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department et al

Filing 41

ORDER Granting 40 Stipulation to Extend Responses to 36 MOTION for Summary Judgment. Responses due by 7/10/2015. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 5/5/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - TR)

Download PDF
Case 2:12-cv-02205-JCM-PAL Document 40 Filed 05/04/15 Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 CAL J. POTTER, III, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 1988 C. J. POTTER, IV, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 13225 POTTER LAW OFFICES 1125 Shadow Lane Las Vegas, Nevada 89102 Tel: (702) 385-1954 Fax: (702) 385-9081 KRISTINE K. JENSEN, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 9302 KRISTINE K. JENSEN, LTD. 529 S. Tenth Street Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 Tel: (702) 822-2772 Fax: (702) 822-2774 Attorneys for Plaintiff 10 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 12 ••••• 13 DAVID EDWIN PLANK, 14 Plaintiff, Case No. 2:12-cv-02205-JCM-PAL 15 vs. 16 17 18 LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, a political subdivision of the State of Nevada; OFFICER B. MAYORAL, individually; and JOHN DOES I-X, inclusive, 19 20 Defendants. __________________________________________/ 21 STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND RESPONSES TO MOTIONS FOR 22 SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND REPLIES THERETO 23 (First Request) 24 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the Plaintiff, DAVID 25 EDWIN PLANK, by and through his counsel, CAL J. POTTER, III, ESQ. and C. J. POTTER, IV, 26 ESQ. of POTTER LAW OFFICES and KRISTINE K. JENSEN, ESQ.; Defendant, LAS VEGAS 27 METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT by and through their attorney THOMAS D. 28 DILLARD, ESQ. of OLSON CANNON GORMLEY ANGULO & STOBERSKI; and Defendant, Case 2:12-cv-02205-JCM-PAL Document 40 Filed 05/04/15 Page 2 of 3 1 OFFICER B. MAYORAL by and through his attorney ROBERT W. FREEMAN, JR., ESQ. of 2 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH that the date for Plaintiff’s Response to the Defendant 3 LVMPD’s Motion for Summary Judgment [doc. 36] currently due Monday, May 4, 2015 be 4 extended up to and including Friday, July 10, 2015. The Plaintiff requests this large extension in 5 order for the Response to coincide with the filing of the Response to Defendant Officer Mayoral’s 6 Summary Judgment.1 7 Plaintiff submits that good cause exists for this extension as Plaintiff’s counsel has been 8 unable to complete the Response due to other deadlines, numerous appearances, and multiple 9 depositions. Based upon the foregoing, the parties request that this Court order the time for the 10 Plaintiff to file his Responses to Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment to Friday, July 10, 11 2015. 12 13 14 This is the first request for enlargement of time is made in good faith and not for the purposes of delay. APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CONTENT. 15 DATED this 4th day of May, 2015. DATED this 4th day of May, 2015. 16 POTTER LAW OFFICES KRISTINE K. JENSEN, LTD. LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH By /s/ Cal J. Potter, III, Esq. CAL J. POTTER, III, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 1988 C. J. POTTER, IV, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 13225 1125 Shadow Lane Las Vegas, Nevada 89102 By /s/ Robert W. Freeman, Jr., Esq. ROBERT W. FREEMAN, JR., ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 3062 6385 S. Rainbow Blvd., Suite 600 Las Vegas, Nevada 89118 Attorney for Defendant, Officer Mayoral KRISTINE K. JENSEN, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 9302 3401 West Charleston Blvd. Las Vegas, Nevada 89102 Attorneys for Plaintiff OLSON, CANNON, GORMLEY, ANGULO & STOBERSKI 17 18 19 20 DATED this 4th day of May, 2015. 21 22 23 By /s/ Thomas D. Dillard, Esq. THOMAS D. DILLARD, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 6271 9950 West Cheyenne Avenue Las Vegas, Nevada 89129 Attorneys for Defendant, LVMPD 24 25 26 27 28 1 Defendant Officer Mayoral’s dispositive motion deadline was extended to June 3, 2015 [doc. 39]. 2 Case 2:12-cv-02205-JCM-PAL Document 40 Filed 05/04/15 Page 3 of 3 1 ORDER 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 May 5, 2015 ________________ DATED ________________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?