Jackson v. State of Nevada et al
Filing
61
ORDER Granting 59 Stipulation to Withdraw Various Filings re 58 Order. Signed by Judge Andrew P. Gordon on 7/23/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MR)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
ADAM PAUL LAXALT
Attorney General
IZAAC ROWE (Bar No. 13947)
Deputy Attorney General
State of Nevada
Office of the Attorney General
555 East Washington Ave., #3900
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
Phone: (702) 486-3210
Fax: (702) 486-3773
E-mail: irowe@ag.nv.gov
Attorneys for Defendants Renee Baker,
Harold Byrne, E.K. McDaniel, Jennifer Nash,
Dwight Neven and Duane Wilson
9
10
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
12
ROBERT JACKSON,
Plaintiff,
13
14
vs.
15
Case No. 2:16-cv-00995-APG-NJK
JOINT STIPULATION TO WITHDRAW
VARIOUS FILINGS
STATE OF NEVADA, et al.,
16
Defendants.
17
In Consideration of the Order issued June 29, 2018, (ECF No. 58), it is stipulated
18
and agreed by and between Plaintiff, ROBERT JACKSON, by and through counsel, Emily
19
A. Buchwald, Esq., and Defendants, RENEE BAKER, HAROLD BYRNE, E.K.
20
MCDANIEL, JENNIFER NASH, DWIGHT NEVEN and DUANE WILSON, by and
21
through counsel, Adam Paul Laxalt, Nevada Attorney General, and Izaac Rowe, Deputy
22
Attorney General, to withdraw, without prejudice, various filings relating to summary
23
judgment made by Plaintiff and Defendants, prior to Plaintiff obtaining Pro Bono counsel.
24
This Court’s Order (EFC No. 58), granted leave to Plaintiff’s counsel to file a
25
supplemental brief or to withdraw ECF Nos. 28, 33, 41, 42 and 44. Plaintiff and Defendants
26
filed prior motions and pleadings regarding summary judgment, prior to Plaintiff obtaining
27
counsel. Now that Plaintiff has counsel, the parties agree to start anew with dispositive
28
motions in accordance with FED R. CIV. P. 56(b).
Page 1 of 2
The Parties hereby agree to withdraw various filings in an effort to streamline the
1
2
dispositive motion practice:
•
•
14
Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 28),
Defendants' Errata to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No.
30),
Plaintiff's Motion to Extend Time to Respond to Defendants' Motion for
Summary Judgment (ECF No. 33),
Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No.
35),
Plaintiff's Statement of Disputed Factual Issues (ECF No. 36),
Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' Errata to Defendants' Motion for
Summary Judgment (ECF No. 38),
Defendants' Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants' Motion for
Summary Judgment (ECF No. 39),
Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File A Supplemental Pleading (ECF No. 41),
Plaintiff's Brief in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment (ECF No. 42),
Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File A Supplemental
Pleading (ECF No. 43),
Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Untimely Filed Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment (ECF No. 44),
Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Strike Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment (ECF No. 48), and
Defendants' Reply in Support of Defendants' Motion to Strike ECF No. 44
(ECF No. 50).
15
The parties stipulate and agree that the withdrawal of said filings is without
16
prejudice, and does not waive any factual assertions or arguments within the filings, nor
17
any defenses or objections therein.
3
4
•
5
•
6
7
•
•
8
•
9
•
•
10
•
11
•
12
•
13
•
18
Dated this 20th day of July, 2018.
Dated this 20th day of July, 2018.
19
By:
By: /s/ Izaac Rowe
Izaac Rowe, Esq.
Deputy Attorney General (Bar No. 13947)
Office of the Nevada Attorney General
555 E. Washington Avenue, #3900
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
Attorneys for Defendants
20
21
22
/s/ Emily A. Buchwald
Emily A. Buchwald, Esq.,
Bar No. 13442
PISANELLI BICE PLLC
400 South 7th Street, Suite 300
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
Attorney for Robert Jackson
23
24
IT IS SO ORDERED.
25
Dated: July 23, _____ day of ______________, 20___.
DATED this 2018.
26
27
28
________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
CASE NO. 2:16-CV-00995-APG-NJK
Page 2 of 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?