Zimmerman v. YSR, Inc.

Filing 19

ORDER Granting 18 Stipulation for Extension of Time. YSR, Inc. answer due 5/31/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr on 5/15/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

Download PDF
Case 2:17-cv-00438-GMN-GWF Document 18 Filed 05/12/17 Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 Sheri M. Thome, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 008657 Chad C. Butterfield, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 010532 WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ, EDELMAN & DICKER LLP 300 South Fourth Street, 11th Floor Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 (702) 727-1400; FAX (702) 727-1401 sheri.thome@wilsonelser.com chad.butterfield@wilsonelser.com Attorneys for Defendant YSR, Inc. 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 11 12 KEVIN ZIMMERMAN, an individual; 13 Plaintiff, 14 v. 15 CASE NO.: 2:17-cv-00438-GMN-GWF STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE RESPONSIVE PLEADING TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT YSR, Inc. (First Request) 16 Defendant. 17 18 19 Defendant, YSR, Inc. (hereinafter “Defendant”), by and through its counsel of record, 20 SHERI M. THOME, ESQ. and CHAD BUTTERFIELD, ESQ., of the law firm WILSON, ELSER, 21 MOSKOWITZ, EDELMAN & DICKER LLP, and Plaintiff, KEVIN ZIMMERMAN, by and 22 through his counsel of record, WHITNEY C. WILCHER, ESQ. of the law offices of THE 23 WILCHER FIRM hereby stipulate and agree to extend the deadline for filing a responsive pleading 24 to May 31, 2017. 25 Plaintiff has represented to Defendant that service of the summons and complaint in this 26 matter were effected on April 17, 2017. Based on that representation, Defendant's responsive 27 pleading was originally due on or before May 8, 2017. Plaintiff has graciously agreed to extend the 28 responsive pleading deadline to May 31, 2017. 1141452v.1 Case 2:17-cv-00438-GMN-GWF Document 18 Filed 05/12/17 Page 2 of 4 1 This stipulation is submitted in compliance with LR IA 6-1. Good cause exists for the 2 requested extension, as Defendant is in the process of conducting an internal survey with respect to 3 the alleged ADA violations identified in the Complaint. The results of this survey are necessary for 4 Defendant to form its defense strategy in this case. Accordingly, the parties agree that the requested 5 extension furthers the interests of this litigation and is not being requested in bad faith or to delay 6 these proceedings unnecessarily. 7 The parties' failure to file this stipulation on or before May 8, 2017 was the result of 8 excusable neglect, as Defendant was unaware of the date of service of the summons and complaint 9 until after the deadline had already expired. Defendant had requested from Plaintiff the date of 10 service of the summons and complaint, which Plaintiff only recently provided. Accordingly, the 11 parties respectfully submit that the failure to file this stipulation on or before the expiration of the 12 original responsive pleading deadline was the result of excusable neglect. 13 This is the parties’ first request for extension of the deadline. 14 DATED this 12th day of May, 2017. WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ, EDELMAN & DICKER LLP 15 16 /s/ Sheri M. Thome Sheri M. Thome, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 008657 Chad C. Butterfield, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 010532 300 South Fourth Street, 11th Floor Las Vegas, NV 89101 Attorneys for Defendant YSR, Inc. 17 18 19 20 21 DATED this 12th day of May, 2017. THE WILCHER FIRM 22 /s/ Whitney C. Wilcher Whitney C. Wilcher, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 7212 8465 West Sahara Avenue Suite 111-236 Las Vegas, NV 89117 Attorney for Plaintiff Kevin Zimmerman 23 24 25 26 27 28 Page 2 of 4 1141452v.1 Case 2:17-cv-00438-GMN-GWF Document 18 Filed 05/12/17 Page 3 of 4 1 ORDER 2 3 4 GOOD CAUSE SHOWN, IT IS SO ORDERED. 15th Dated this _____ day of _____________, 2017. May 5 ________________________________________ STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Page 3 of 4 1141452v.1

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?