Trustees of the Bricklayers & Allied Craftworkers Local 13 Defined Contribution Pension Trust For Southern Nevada et al v. Practical Flooring, Inc. et al
Filing
24
ORDER Granting 23 Stipulation for Extension of Time re Dispositive Motion Deadline (Second Request). Motions due by 12/29/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr on 11/30/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MR)
1
2
3
4
5
6
THE URBAN LAW FIRM
Michael A. Urban, Nevada Bar No. 3875
Sean W. McDonald, Nevada Bar No. 12817
4270 S. Decatur Blvd., Suite A-9
Las Vegas, NV 89103
T: (702) 968-8087
F: (702) 968-8088
murban@theurbanlawfirm.com
smcdonald@theurbanlawfirm.com
Counsel for Plaintiffs
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
10
11
12
TRUSTEES OF THE BRICKLAYERS &
ALLIED CRAFTWORKERS LOCAL 13
DEFINED CONTRIBUTION PENSION TRUST
FOR SOUTHERN NEVADA; et al.,
15
16
17
STIPULATION TO EXTEND
DISPOSITIVE MOTION DEADLINE
Plaintiffs,
13
14
Case No. 2:16-cv-00510-GMN-GWF
vs.
(Second Request)
PRACTICAL FLOORING, INC., a Nevada
corporation; and DANETTE BORDLEMAYROYBAL aka DANETTE ROYBAL, an
individual,
Defendants.
18
19
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the parties’ counsel of record,
20
and subject to the approval of the Court, that the dispositive motion deadline be extended 30 days to
21
December 29, 2017. The current deadline is November 29, 2017. Discovery has closed.
22
In the prior stipulation extending this deadline approved by the Court (ECF No. 22), the parties
23
reported that they reached a tentative settlement of this matter, subject to reducing the settlement to
24
writing and executing the same. The settlement agreement has been reduced to writing and has been
25
exchanged among the parties.
26
The tentative settlement provides one contingency that has not been removed. Based upon
27
Defendants’ representations, which representations Plaintiffs are presently satisfied with, delay outside
28
the control of the parties to this litigation has prevented removal of the contingency and, thus, the
1
1
tentative settlement agreement from being fully consummated. Defendants expect the contingency to be
2
removed within the two weeks. Plaintiffs are, at this time, satisfied Defendants are making reasonable,
3
good faith efforts to remove the contingency to settlement. Thus, the parties request 30 additional days
4
within which to finalize settlement. Within that time, the parties expect to file a stipulation for dismissal,
5
a status report, or, in the event the sole remaining contingency to settlement is not able to be removed
6
and a written settlement agreement is signed by the parties, to file dispositive motions.
7
This is the parties’ second request for an extension of the dispositive motion deadline that does
8
not also extend a discovery deadline. This request is not made for any improper purpose or delay. Based
9
upon the foregoing, the parties believe there is good cause for the requested extension because it is in
10
furtherance of settlement, is in the interest of judicial economy, and will conserve the parties’ resources
11
by not incurring unnecessary litigation expenses which would impede conclusion of settlement.
12
Dated: November 29, 2017
Dated: November 29, 2017
13
THE URBAN LAW FIRM
KUNG & BROWN
14
/s/ Sean W. McDonald
Michael A. Urban, Esq.
Sean W. McDonald, Esq.
4270 S. Decatur Blvd., Suite A-9
Las Vegas, Nevada 89103
T: (702) 968-8087
F: (702) 968-8088
murban@theurbanlawfirm.com
smcdonald@theurbanlawfirm.com
Counsel for Plaintiffs
/s/ Georlen Spangler
Georlen Spangler, Esq.
214 South Maryland Parkway
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
T: (702) 382-0883
F: (702) 382-2720
jspangler@ajkunglaw.com
Counsel for Defendants, Practical Flooring,
Inc. and Danette Roybal
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
IT IS SO ORDERED.
23
24
25
_____________________________________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
26
Dated: __________________
11/30/2017
27
28
107136
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?