INAG, Inc. et al v. Richar, LLC

Filing 143

ORDER Granting 142 Joint Stipulation to Extend Time re 140 Motion in Limine, 138 Motion in Limine, 141 Motion in Limine, 139 Motion in Limine. Richar's Responses due by 2/18/2022. INAG's Replies due by 2/25/2022. Signed by Judge Richard F. Boulware, II on 2/9/2022. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - YAW)

Case 2:16-cv-00722-RFB-EJY Document 143 Filed 02/09/22 Page 1 of 3

1
2
3
4
5
6

TYLER R. ANDREWS, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 9499
[e-mail]
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
10845 Griffith Peak Drive
Suite 600
Las Vegas, NV 89135
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Counsel for Defendant/Counterclaimant

7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

10
11

INAG, INC., a Nevada corporation,

12
13
14
15

and
MARK H. JONES and SHERYLE L.
JONES as Trustees of the Mark Hamilton
Jones and Sheryle Lynn Jones Family
Trust U/A/D November 7, 2013,

16

Case No.: 2:16-cv-00722-RFB-EJY
[Consolidated with Case No. 2:16-cv-01282RCJ-CWH]
[Assigned to Hon. Richard F. Boulware, II]
JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER TO
EXTEND THE MOTION IN LIMINE
BRIEFING SCHEDULE

Plaintiffs/Counterdefendants,

17

v.

18

RICHAR, INC., a Nevada corporation,

19
20

Defendant/Counterclaimant.

21

Defendant Richar, Inc. (“Richar”) and Plaintiffs, INAG, Inc. and Mark H. Jones and

22

Sheryle L. Jones as Trustees of the Mark Hamilton Jones and Sheryle Lynn Jones Family Trust

23

U/A/D November 7, 2013 (collectively, “INAG”), by and through their attorneys, hereby stipulate

24

to an additional one-week extension of the briefing deadlines previously entered by this Court on

25

November 5, 2021 (ECF Docket No. 133).

26

The current scheduling order sets the briefing as follows:

27
28

Page 1

Case 2:16-cv-00722-RFB-EJY Document 143 Filed 02/09/22 Page 2 of 3

1

1.

Richar’s Responses and/or Objections to Plaintiff’s Motions in Limine No. 1 (ECF

2

Docket No. 138), No. 2 (ECF Docket No. 139), No. 3 (ECF Docket No. 140) and

3

No. 4 (ECF Docket No. 141) are due February 11, 2022;

4

2.

5

Due to an unmovable scheduling conflict, Richar respectfully requests a one-week

6

extension of time to respond to INAG’s Motions in Limine.
The Parties have discussed the schedule and subsequent briefing deadlines, and agreed

7
8

INAG’s Replies are due February 18, 2022.

upon the following:

9



Richar’s Responses and/or Objections will now be due February 18, 2022; and

10



INAG’s Replies will now be due February 25, 2022.

11

The parties’ request is brought for the good cause shown and is not sought for purposes of

12

delay.

13

IT IS SO STIPULATED AND AGREED.

14

DATED: February 8, 2022

GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP

15
By:

/s/ Tyler R. Andrews
Tyler R. Andrews
Counsel for Defendant/Counterclaimant

16
17
18

DATED: February 8, 2022

DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC

19
By:

/s/ Ariana F. Pellegrino
Ariana F. Pellegrino
Counsel for Plaintiffs/Counterdefendants

20
21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23

DATED: ______________

____________________________________
United States District Judge

24
25
26
27
28

DATED this 9th day of February, 2022.
Page 2

Case 2:16-cv-00722-RFB-EJY Document 143 Filed 02/09/22 Page 3 of 3

1
2
3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on February 8, 2022, a true and correct copy of the foregoing was
filed and served via the United States District Court’s ECF System to the persons listed below:

4
Rob Phillips, Esq.

[e-mail]

John L. Krieger , Esq.

[e-mail],
[e-mail],
[e-mail],
[e-mail]

8

John S. Artz, Esq.

[e-mail]

9

Franklin M. Smith, Esq.

[e-mail]

Ariana F. Pellegrino, Esq.

[e-mail]

5
6
7

10
11
12
13

/s/ Tyler R. Andrews
An employee of Greenberg Traurig, LLP

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Page 3