Gayler v. High Desert State Prison et al
Filing
113
ORDER Granting 112 Stipulation for Extension of Time (First Request) re 110 Renewed MOTION for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff's Responses due by 9/20/2017. Signed by Judge Andrew P. Gordon on 8/21/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)
Case 2:14-cv-00769-APG-CWH Document 112 Filed 08/18/17 Page 1 of 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
Margaret A. McLetchie, Nevada Bar No. 10931
Alina M. Shell, Nevada Bar No. 11711
MCLETCHIE SHELL LLC
701 East Bridger Ave., Suite 520
Las Vegas, NV 89101
Telephone: (702) 728-5300
Facsimile: (702) 425-8220
Email: maggie@nvlitigation.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff, Brandyn Gayler
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
9
10
11
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
701 EAST BRIDGER AVE., SUITE 520
LAS VEGAS, NV 89101
(702)728-5300 (T) / (702)425-8220 (F)
WWW.NVLITIGATION.COM
12
13
14
15
BRANDYN GAYLER,
Case. No.: 2:14-cv-00769-APG-CWH
Plaintiff,
STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR
AN EXTENSION OF TIME FOR
PLAINTIFF TO RESPOND TO
DEFENDANTS’ RENEWED
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT (ECF No. 110)
vs.
HIGH DESERT STATE PRISON, et al.,
Defendants.
(First Request)
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COME NOW, the parties, by and through their undersigned counsel of record, and
hereby agree and stipulate to extend the time for Plaintiff Brandyn Gayler to file his Response
to Defendants’ Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 110), which is currently
due on August 21, 2017, be extended to and including September 20, 2017.
This Stipulation for an extension of time is not sought for any improper purpose or
other purpose of delay, but in the interest of effectively representing Plaintiff’s interests in
this matter. This is the first request for an extension of time in this matter.
This stipulation is made because deadlines and work in other matters interfere with
the preparation of the response in this matter. Specifically, on August 4, 2017, counsel for
Plaintiff filed a third amended complaint in Trost v. State of Nevada, et al., 3:14-cv-006611MMD-WGC, and subsequently filed a corrected third amended complaint and errata on
August 17, 2017. Counsel for Plaintiff also filed a response to an emergency motion for stay
1
Case 2:14-cv-00769-APG-CWH Document 112 Filed 08/18/17 Page 2 of 2
1
in Clark County School District v. Las Vegas Review-Journal, Nev. S. Ct. Case No. 73525
2
on August 4, 2017. Counsel also filed an answering brief in The State of Nevada, et al. v.
3
Jason Lewis Neary, Nev. S. Ct. Case No. 72578 on August 11, 2017, and a reply brief in
4
Stephen Gerald Martin v. State of Nevada, et al., Nev. S. Ct. Case No. 71806 on August 14,
5
2017. In addition, counsel for Plaintiff conducted depositions in Las Vegas Review-Journal
6
v. Clark County School District, Eighth Judicial District Court Case No. A-17-750151-W on
7
August 17, 2017, and August 18, 2017. Counsel for Plaintiff also has a reply due on August
8
25, 2017 in Does 1-17 v. Laxalt, Nev. S. Ct. Case No. 70704, as well as deadlines in several
9
other state court matters.
10
11
Plaintiff will file his Response to Defendants’ Renewed Motion for Summary
Judgment as soon as possible, no later than September 20, 2017.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
701 EAST BRIDGER AVE., SUITE 520
LAS VEGAS, NV 89101
(702)728-5300 (T) / (702)425-8220 (F)
WWW.NVLITIGATION.COM
12
13
14
DATED this 18th day of August, 2017.
DATED this 18th day of August, 2017.
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
MCLETCHIE SHELL LLC
/s/ D. Randall Gilmer
D. Randall Gilmer, NBN 14001
555 E. Washington Ave.
Suite 2600
Las Vegas, NV 89101
Attorney for Defendants
/s/ Alina M. Shell
Margaret A. McLetchie, NBN 10931
Alina M. Shell, NBN 11711
701 East Bridger Ave., Suite 520
Las Vegas, NV 89101
Attorneys for Plaintiff
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
ORDER
22
23
IT IS SO ORDERED.
24
Dated August 21, 2017.
Dated: this ____ day of August, 2017.
25
26
27
____________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
28
2
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?