Birkan v. Seterus, Inc. et al

Filing 17

ORDER Granting 15 Stipulation to Extend Time to Respond to Complaint. Seterus, Inc. answer due 11/18/2016. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 11/2/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

Case 2:16-cv-02060-APG-PAL Document 15 Filed 11/02/16 Page 1 of 3

1
2
3
4
5

J Christopher Jorgensen
Nevada Bar No. 5382
LEWIS ROCA ROTHGERBER CHRISTIE LLP
3993 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 600
Las Vegas, NV 89169
Phone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendant
Seterus, Inc.

6
7
8
9
10
11

David H. Krieger, Esq.
Nevada Bar No. 9086
HAINES & KRIEGER, LLC
8985 S. Eastern Ave., Suite 350
Henderson, NV 89123
Phone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
James Birkan

12
13

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

14
15

JAMES BIRKAN,

16
17
18
19
20
21
22

Case No.: 2:16-cv-02060-APG-PAL

Plaintiff,

STIPULATION TO EXTEND
DEFENDANT SETERUS, INC.’S
TIME TO RESPOND TO
COMPLAINT

vs.
SETERUS, INC.; TOYOTA FINANCIAL
SERVICES; FEDERAL NATIONAL
MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION A/K/A
FANNIE MAE; EQUIFAX
INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC;
INNOVIS DATA SOLUTIONS, INC.,

(THIRD REQUEST)
Compl. Filed: August 30, 2016
Hon. Judge Andrew P. Gordon
Hon. Mag. Judge Peggy A. Leen

Defendants.

23
24
25
26
27
28

2011364752_1

1

Case 2:16-cv-02060-APG-PAL Document 15 Filed 11/02/16 Page 2 of 3

1

This is the third Stipulated Request to Extend Time to Respond to Complaint

2

made by and between Plaintiff James Birkan (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant Seterus, Inc.

3

(“Seterus”) through their respective counsel. This Request is made in light of the

4

following facts:

5

RECITALS

6
7

A.

Plaintiff filed the Complaint (“Complaint”) against Seterus on or about

August 30, 2016.

8

B.

Seterus was served with the Complaint on September 19, 2016.

9

C.

The parties stipulated to extend Seterus’ time to respond to the Complaint

10

through November 4, 2016, in order to give Seterus time to investigate Plaintiff’s

11

claims and prepare a proper response, and for the parties to discuss a potential

12

resolution of this matter. Dkt. 11.

13

D.

On October 20, 2016, the Court granted the parties stipulation. Dkt. 13.

14

E.

Upon Seterus’ request, the parties agreed to further extend Seterus’ time to

15

respond to the Complaint through November 18, 2016, in order to give Seterus the

16

additional time necessary to investigate Plaintiff’s claims and prepare a proper

17

response, and for the parties to discuss a potential resolution of this matter.

18

F.

There is good cause to grant this stipulation because Seterus requires

19

additional time to investigate Plaintiff’s claims and prepare a proper response, and the

20

parties require additional time to consider a resolution of this matter.

21

G.

Pursuant to LR IA 6-1, Plaintiff and Seterus respectfully request that the

22

Court extend Seterus’ time to respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint through November 18,

23

2016.

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28
2011364752_1

1
STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT [THIRD REQUEST]

Case 2:16-cv-02060-APG-PAL Document 15 Filed 11/02/16 Page 3 of 3

1

STIPULATION

2

NOW, THEREFORE, Plaintiff and Seterus hereby stipulate and agree that

3

Seterus has up to and including November 18, 2016, to file a response to Plaintiff’s

4

Complaint.

5

IT IS SO STIPULATED

6
7

DATED: November 2, 2016

LEWIS ROCA ROTHGERBER CHRISTIE LLP

8
By: /s/ J Christopher Jorgensen
J Christopher Jorgensen
Attorneys for Defendant
Seterus, Inc.

9
10
11
12

DATED: November 2, 2016

HAINES & KRIEGER, LLC

13
14

By: /s/ David H. Krieger
David H. Krieger, Esq.
Attorneys for Plaintiff
James Birkan

15
16
17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19
20
21

United States Magistrate Judge

22

Dated: November 2, 2016

23
24
25
26
27
28
2011364752_1

2
STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT [THIRD REQUEST]