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)

Download PDF
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?