Robinson v. MV Transportation, Inc.
Filing
35
ORDER Granting 24 Stipulation Dismissing Plaintiff's Second Cause of Action with Prejudice and Vacating Briefing Schedule. FURTHER ORDERED that 22 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is DENIED as moot. Signed by Judge Richard F. Boulware, II on 3/21/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)
1 Janice M. Michaels
Nevada Bar No. 6062
2 jmichaels@wshblaw.com
Brooke A. Bohlke
3 Nevada Bar No. 9374
bbohlke@wshblaw.com
4 Analise N. Martinez
Nevada Bar No. 13185
5 amartinez@wshblaw.com
Nevada Bar No. 13185
6 Wood, Smith, Henning & Berman LLP
7674 West Lake Mead Boulevard, Suite 150
7 Las Vegas, Nevada 89128-6644
Telephone: 702 251 4100
8 Facsimile: 702 251 5405
Attorneys at Law
7674 WEST LAKE MEAD BOULEVARD, SUITE 150
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89128-6644
TELEPHONE 702 251 4100 ♦ FAX 702 251 5405
WOOD, SMITH, HENNING & BERMAN LLP
9 Attorneys for Defendant,
MV TRANSPORTATION, INC.
10
11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
12
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
13
14 TONIE ROBINSON, individually,
Case No. 2:17-cv-01491-RFB-PAL
15
STIPULATION AND ORDER
DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S SECOND
CAUSE OF ACTION WITH PREJUDICE
AND VACATING BRIEFING SCHEDULE
Plaintiff,
16
v.
17 MV TRANSPORTATION, INC.; DOE BUS
OPERATOR; DOE BUS DRIVER; DOES I18 X, and ROE CORPORATIONS I-X, inclusive,
19
Trial Date:
None Set
Defendants.
20
21
COMES NOW Plaintiff, TONIE ROBINSON, ("Plaintiff"), by and through his counsel of
22
record, Richard Harris Law Firm, Defendant MV TRANSPORTATION, INC., by and through its
23
counsel of record, Wood, Smith, Henning & Berman LLP, and hereby stipulate and agree to the
24
following:
25
///
26
///
27
///
28
LEGAL:10640-0209/8670748.1
1
THE PARTIES HEREBY STIPULATE AND AGREE that Plaintiff's Second Cause of Action,
2 asserting a violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) 42 U.S.C. § 12, 101 et. seq., is
3 hereby dismissed with prejudice.
4
THE PARTIES FURTHER STIPULATE AND AGREE that the briefing schedule and
-----
____
5 hearing associated with MV Transportation, Inc.'s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment regarding
6 Plaintiff's Second Cause of Action, asserting a violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act
7 (ADA) 42 U.S.C. § 12, 101 et. seq., filed with the Court on February 13, 2018, Document Number
8 22, is hereby vacated. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that MV Transportation, Inc.'s Motion for
9 Partial Summary Judgment is DENIED as moot.
Attorneys at Law
7674 WEST LAKE MEAD BOULEVARD, SUITE 150
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89128-6644
TELEPHONE 702 251 4100 ♦ FAX 702 251 5405
WOOD, SMITH, HENNING & BERMAN LLP
10 IT IS SO STIPULATED.
11 DATED this 27th day of February, 2018
DATED this 27th day of February, 2018
12 WOOD SMITH HENNING & BERMAN, LLP
/s/ Analise N. Martinez
13
Brooke A. Bohlke
14 Nevada Bar No. 9374
Analise N. Martinez
15 Nevada Bar No. 13185
Attorneys for Defendant
16 MV TRANSPORTATION, INC.
RICHARD HARRIS LAW FIRM
/s/ David J. Martin
David J. Martin, Esq.
Nevada Bar No. 9117
Attorneys for Plaintiff
TONIE ROBINSON
17
IT IS SO ORDERED.
18
19
12th
March
21
21st
28th
February
Dated this ____ day of ___________, 2018.
21
__________________________
RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II
United States District Court
22
DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
20
23
24
25
26
27
28
LEGAL:10640-0209/8670748.1
-2-
1
2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 27th
day of February, 2018, a true and correct copy
3 of STIPULATION AND ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
4 WITH PREJUDICE AND VACATING BRIEFING SCHEDULE was served via the United States
5 District Court CM/ECF system on all parties or persons requiring notice.
6
By /s/ Cindy A. Mulder
An Employee of WOOD, SMITH, HENNING &
BERMAN LLP
7
8
9
Attorneys at Law
7674 WEST LAKE MEAD BOULEVARD, SUITE 150
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89128-6644
TELEPHONE 702 251 4100 ♦ FAX 702 251 5405
WOOD, SMITH, HENNING & BERMAN LLP
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
LEGAL:10640-0209/8670748.1
-3-
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?