INAG, Inc. et al v. Richar, LLC

Filing 146

ORDER granting 145 Stipulation to Extend Time to Reply Re: 144 Response to 140 Motion in Limine, 141 Motion in Limine, 139 Motion in Limine, 138 Motion in Limine Replies due by 3/4/2022. Signed by Judge Richard F. Boulware, II on 2/23/2022. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - HAM)

Case 2:16-cv-00722-RFB-EJY Document 146 Filed 02/23/22 Page 1 of 2

DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC
JOHN L. KRIEGER
Nevada Bar No: 6023
[e-mail]
8363 West Sunset Road, Suite 200
Las Vegas, Nevada 89113
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
JOHN S. ARTZ (admitted pro hac vice)
Michigan Bar No. P48578
[e-mail]
FRANKLIN M. SMITH (admitted pro hac vice)
Michigan Bar No. P76987
[e-mail]
ARIANA D. PELLEGRINO (admitted pro hac vice)
Michigan Bar No. 79104
[e-mail]
2600 West Big Beaver Rd., Suite 300
Troy, MI 48084
Counsel for Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
Case No.: 2:16-cv-00722-RFB-EJY

INAG, INC., a Nevada corporation,
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,

JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER TO
EXTEND THE MOTION IN LIMINE
BRIEFING SCHEDULE

Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants,
v.
RICHAR, INC., a Nevada corporation,
Defendant/Counterclaimant.
Plaintiffs INAG, Inc. 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 (collectively,
“INAG”) and Defendant Richar, Inc. (“Richar”), by and through their attorneys, hereby stipulate
1

Case 2:16-cv-00722-RFB-EJY Document 146 Filed 02/23/22 Page 2 of 2

to an additional one-week extension of the deadline for the filing of INAG’s reply briefs in support
of Motions in Limine, as previously entered by this Court on November 5, 2021 (ECF Docket No.
133) and extended by Stipulated Order on February 9, 2022 (Docket No. 143).
The current scheduling order sets February 25, 2022 as the date on which INAG’s reply
briefs are due.
Due to an unmovable scheduling conflict, INAG respectfully requests a one-week
extension of time to reply to Richar’s Responses and/or Objections to Plaintiff’s Motions in Limine
No. 1 (ECF Docket No. 138), No. 2 (ECF Docket No. 139), No. 3 (ECF Docket No. 140) and No.
4 (ECF Docket No. 141).
The Parties have discussed the extension and agreed upon the following:
•

INAG’s Replies will now be due March 4, 2022.

The parties’ request is brought for the good cause shown and is not sought for purposes of delay.
IT IS SO STIPULATED AND AGREED.
DATED: February 21, 2022

DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC
By: /s/ Ariana F. Pellegrino
Ariana F. Pellegrino
Counsel for Plaintiffs/Counterdefendants
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
By: /s/ Tyler R. Andrews
Counsel for Defendant/Counterclaimant

IT IS SO ORDERED:

________________________________
RICHARD BOULWARE, II
United States District Court
Dated this _____ day of _____________, 2022
23rd
February

2