Nickler v. County of Clark et al

Filing 107

ORDER granting 106 Stipulation; Re: 96 Motion to Dismiss. Replies due by 11/8/2019. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 11/1/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JM)

Case 2:14-cv-01907-JCM-DJA Document 106 Filed 10/31/19 Page 1 of 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

AARON D. FORD
Attorney General
D. RANDALL GILMER (Bar No. 14001)
Chief Deputy Attorney General
State of Nevada
Office of the Attorney General
555 E. Washington Avenue, Suite 3900
Las Vegas, NV 89101
[phone] (phone)
[phone] (fax)
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendant Steven Grierson

8
9
10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

12
13

JACQUELYNN NICKLER,
Plaintiff,

Case No.: 2:14-cv-01907-APG-CWH

18

STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME FOR
DEFENDANTS STEVE GRIERSON,
KATHLEEN LAMBERMONT, AND
CLARK COUNTY TO FILE THEIR
REPLY BRIEFS IN SUPPORT OF
THEIR MOTIONS’ TO DISMISS FROM
NOVEMBER 1, 2019 TO NOVEMBER 8,
2019

19

(First Request for Extension)

14
15
16

v.
COUNTY OF CLARK, et al.,
Defendants.

17

20
21

COME NOW the parties, by and through their undersigned counsel of record and

22

hereby stipulate and agree that the time for Defendants Steve Grierson, Kathleen

23

Lambermont and Clark County to file a reply brief in support of Grierson’s Motions’ to

24

Dismiss or for Summary Judgment and Lambermont and Clark County’s joinder to those

25

motions (ECF Nos. 96, 99) shall be extended from November 1, 2019 to November 9, 2019.

26

This is Defendants’ first request for an extension of time to file their respective reply briefs.

27

This one-week extension of time to file reply briefs is being sought for the following

28

30
31

good faith reasons:

Page 1 of 3

Case 2:14-cv-01907-JCM-DJA Document 106 Filed 10/31/19 Page 2 of 3
1

First, Plaintiff’s Opposition was filed on October 25, 2019, which was a state holiday.

2

As a result, the Office of the Attorney General’s office was closed. Further, Grierson’s

3

counsel was travelling for the holiday, and was not able to review the opposition until

4

Monday, October 28, 2019 upon returning to the office following the Nevada Day holiday.

5

Second, Nickler’s Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 105) is identical to

6

the Opposition filed to the Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 104), as the Motion

7

for Summary Judgment filed by Grierson (ECF No. 97) was identical to the Motion to

8

Dismiss (ECF No. 96). Similarly, the joinders filed by Defendants Lambermont and Clark

9

County (ECF Nos. 99, 100) were identical as well.

10

Accordingly, the reply brief filed in support of the Motion to Dismiss will be identical

11

to the reply brief filed in support of the Motion for Summary Judgment, which is not due

12

until Friday, November 8, 2019. By extending the deadline to November 8, 2019,

13

Defendants will be afforded the full opportunity to respond to the Motion for Summary

14

Judgment, as opposed to having to complete the reply within seven (7) days.

15

Third, because the reply brief in support of the Motion to Dismiss will be the identical

16

document to the reply brief filed in support of the Motion for Summary Judgment (as each

17

of those motions are identical), the one-week extension will not result in any undue delay

18

or prejudice, as it will ensure that the timelines for both motions coincide with one another.

19

This Stipulation is made in good faith and not for the purpose of delay. As noted,

20

this is the first extension of time filed with regard to this reply brief. Given that the reply

21

brief deadline for the Motion for Summary Judgment is November 8, 2019, and Defendants

22

are not seeking to extend that deadline, no delay in the decision of this motion will occur

23

as a result of this one-week extension.

24
25
26

...

27

...

28

...

30
31

Page 2 of 3

Case 2:14-cv-01907-JCM-DJA Document 106 Filed 10/31/19 Page 3 of 3
1

Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to extend the deadline to file their reply

2

brief in support of Defendants’ respective Motions to Dismiss one week, making the new

3

deadline Friday, November 8, 2019 as opposed to Friday, November 1, 2019.

4
5

Respectfully stipulated to by the parties and submitted on this 31st day of October,
2019:

6

On behalf of Plaintiff:

On behalf of Defendant Grierson by:

7

/s/ James P. Kemp
James P. Kemp, Esq. (Bar No. 6375)
Kemp & Kemp
7435 W. Azure Drive, Suite 110
Las Vegas, NV 89130
702.258.1183 – phone
702.258.6983 – fax
[e-mail]

/s/ D. Randall Gilmer
D. Randall Gilmer, Esq. (Bar No. 14001)
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
555 E. Washington Avenue, Suite 2600
Las Vegas, NV 89101
702.486.3427 – phone
702.486.3774 – fax
[e-mail]

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Attorneys for Defendant Grierson

8
9
10
11
12

On behalf of
Defendants Lambermont and Clark County by:

13
14

/s/ Robert W. Freeman, Jr.
Robert W. Freeman, Jr., Esq. (Bar No. 3062)
Eunice M. Beattie, Esq. (Bar No. 10382)
6385 S. Rainbow Blvd., Suite 600
Las Vegas, NV 89118
702.893.3383 – phone
702.893.3789 – fax
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

15
16
17
18
19

Attorneys for Defendant Lambermont and
Clark County

20
21
22

ORDER

23

Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties stated herein, Defendants’ Reply Briefs in

24

support of their respective Motions to Dismiss shall be due on Friday, November 8, 2019,

25

as opposed to Friday, November 1, 2019.

26

IT IS SO ORDERED.

27

Dated: November 1, 2019.

28

U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

30

Page 3 of 3

31