Coryell v. United State of America, Dept. of the Navy et al

Filing 22

ORDER Granting 21 Stipulation to Extend Time. CMI Corporation answer due 6/28/2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 6/1/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

Case 2:18-cv-00593-GMN-NJK Document 21 Filed 05/30/18 Page 1 of 2

1
2
3
4
5
6

Howard J. Russell, Esq.
Nevada Bar No. 8879
[e-mail]
WEINBERG, WHEELER, HUDGINS,
GUNN & DIAL, LLC
6385 S. Rainbow Blvd., Suite 400
Las Vegas, Nevada 89118
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
Attorney for Defendant
CMI Corporation

7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

10
11

TERRY CORYELL, individually,

12

Case No.:

2:18-cv-00593-GMN-NJK

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY; CMI
CORPORATION; TRINITY INDUSTRIES, INC.;
DOES I – X, and ROE CORPORATIONS I – X,
inclusive,

15
16
17

AMENDED STIPULATION AND
ORDER TO EXTEND TIME
TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT
(FIRST REQUEST)

Defendants.

18
19

Pursuant to LR IA 6-1 and LR IA 6-2, Plaintiff TERRY CORYELL and

20

Defendant CMI CORPORATION, by and through their respective attorneys of record, hereby

21

stipulate to extend the time within which Defendant CMI CORPORATION may respond to

22

Plaintiff’s Complaint, as follows;

23
24

WHEREAS Defendant CMI CORPORATION is presently required to respond to
Plaintiff’s Complaint on or before May 29, 2018;
WHEREAS the parties submitted a Stipulation on May 29, 2018, which was denied

25
26

without prejudice on May 30, 2018;

27

///

Page 1 of 2

Case 2:18-cv-00593-GMN-NJK Document 21 Filed 05/30/18 Page 2 of 2

1

WHEREAS the specific manufacture date and identifying information of the subject

2

product have not yet been determined to allow Defendant to meaningfully respond to Plaintiff’s

3

Complaint;
WHEREAS the parties agree that additional time is needed for Defendant to be able to

4
5

gather information for a meaningful response to Plaintiff’s Complaint;
WHEREAS Plaintiff has agreed that Defendant CMI CORPORATION may be allowed

6
7

an additional thirty (30) calendar days within which to respond;

8

WHEREAS an additional thirty days for Defendant CMI CORPORATION to respond

9

to Plaintiff’s Complaint will not alter the date of any event or deadline already fixed by Court

10
11
12

order;
WHEREAS this is the first request for an extension of this deadline, and the Court has
not granted any previous extensions of the deadline;

13
14

NOW, THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties hereto,

15

that Defendant CMI CORPORATION will respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint on or before June

16

28, 2018.

17
18

DATED this 30th day of May, 2018.

21

___/s/ Samantha A. Martin _____
Samantha A. Martin, Esq.
RICHARD HARRIS LAW FIRM
801 S. Fourth St.
Las Vegas, NV 89101

22

Attorney for Plaintiff

19
20

___/s/ Howard J. Russell_______
Howard J. Russell, Esq.
WEINBERG, WHEELER, HUDGINS,
GUNN & DIAL, LLC
6385 S. Rainbow Blvd., Suite 400
Las Vegas, NV 89118
Attorney for Defendant CMI Corporation

23
24
IT IS SO ORDERED:
25
26
27

________________________________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
June 1, 2018
DATED: __________________

Page 2 of 2