Davis v. Unitel Voice, LLC et al

Filing 79

ORDER Granting 77 Stipulation to Extend Time Re: 72 Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint. Replies due by 9/4/2019. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brenda Weksler on 8/22/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

Case 2:18-cv-00673-JCM-BNW Document 77 Filed 08/20/19 Page 1 of 4

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
4
5

Case No.: 2:18-CV-00673-JCM-BNW
STEVEN R. DAVIS, an individual,
Plaintiffs,

6
7

STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION
OF TIME TO REPLY TO
DEFENDANT CENTURYLINK,
INC.’S, RESPONSE TO
PLAINTIFF’S SECOND MOTION
TO AMEND COMPLAINT
PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 15
(a) (2) AND 15 (c)(1) (B) & (C)

vs.
UNITEL VOICE, LLC, et al

8

Defendants.

9
(First Request)
10
11

Plaintiff Steven R. Davis, pro se, and CenturyLink Inc. through its undersigned

12

counsel of record, agree that upon the Court’s approval, Plaintiff’s Reply to Defendant

13

CenturyLink, Inc.’s Response to his Second Motion to Amend, currently due on August 21,

14

2019, shall be due two weeks from that date, on September 4, 2019, for the reasons set forth

15

below:

16

1. Defendant CenturyLink Inc. Opposition to Plaintiff’s Second Motion to Amend

17
18

was filed on August 14, 2019.
2. Plaintiff, via email has requested an Extension to September 4, 2019 to file his

19
20

Reply.
3. Plaintiff is pro se and has limited access to legal resources and needs the

21
22

additional time to craft his Reply.
4.

Attorney Lauren D. Calvert communicated her assent.

23
24
25
26
27

Stipulation for Extension of Time to Reply to Opposition to Second Motion to Amend
Page 1 of 4

Case 2:18-cv-00673-JCM-BNW Document 77 Filed 08/20/19 Page 2 of 4

1

5. Accordingly, Plaintiff and Defendant, CenturyLink, Inc. agree that, upon the

2

Court’s approval, Plaintiff’s Reply to Defendant’s response to Plaintiff’s

3

Second Motion to Amend shall be due on or before September 4, 2019.

4

6. This Stipulation has been entered before the Motion is otherwise due.

5

7. Pursuant to Local Rule 6-1, this is Plaintiff and Defendant’s first request for an

6

extension of this deadline.

7

8. The parties seek this extension in good faith and not for purposes of delay.

8

9. No party would be prejudiced by the granting of this stipulated motion for an

9
10
11

extension of time.
Dated, this the 20th day of August 2019, by the undersigned Plaintiff and counsel
for Defendant, CenturyLink, Inc.

12
/s/ Steve R. Davis
13
14
15
16

_____________________________________
Steve R. Davis, Pro Per

4038 Velarde Ct.

Las Vegas, NV 89120
IT IS SO ORDERED 
[phone]

[e-mail]

17
Messner Reeves, LLP
18
19
20
21
22

DATED:  August 22, 2019

__________________________________________________ 
BRENDA WEKSLER 
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

/s/Lauren Clavert, Esq.
M. CALEB MEYER< ESQ>
Nevada Bar # 13379
LAUREN CALVERT, ESQ.
Nevada Bar #10534
8945 West Russell Road Suite 300
Las Vegas, NV 89148
Attorneys for Defendant, CeenturyLink, Inc.

23
24
25
26
27

Stipulation for Extension of Time to Reply to Opposition to Second Motion to Amend
Page 2 of 4

Case 2:18-cv-00673-JCM-BNW Document 77 Filed 08/20/19 Page 3 of 4

1
ORDER
2
IT IS SO ORDERED.
3
Dated:

, 2019

4
5

_____________________________________
U.S. District Judge

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Stipulation for Extension of Time to Reply to Opposition to Second Motion to Amend
Page 3 of 4

Case 2:18-cv-00673-JCM-BNW Document 77 Filed 08/20/19 Page 4 of 4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

1
2

I, the undersigned Plaintiff certify that the foregoing was served on the 20th day of August,

3

2019, via the Court's CM/ECF system, which generated a notice of electronic filing and distributed

4

the foregoing STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFF AND

5

DEFENDANT CENTURYLINK, INC.’ FOR PLAINTIFF TO REPLY TO CENTURYLINK,

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

INC.’S OPPOSITION TO HIS SECOND MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT PURSUANT
TO FED. R. CIV. P. 15 (a)(2); 15(c)(1)(B) & (C) and all attachments thereto to all counsel of
record to have appeared in the above-titled action:

Joseph R. Ganley
Patricia Lee
HUTCHISON & STEFFEN, PLLC
10080 West Alta Drive, Suite 200
Las Vegas, Nevada 89145
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Irwin Schwartz
BLA Schwartz, PC
One University Avenue, Suite 302B
Westwood, Massachusetts 02090
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendant Somos, Inc.
J. Malcolm DeVoy (Nevada Bar No. 11950)
Erica A. Bobak (Nevada Bar No. 13828)
DeVoy Law P.C.
2575 Montessouri Street, Suite 201
Las Vegas, NV 89117
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendant Telecom Management Group, Inc., d/b/a Unitel,

20
21
22

/s/ Steven Davis
Steven R. Davis
4038 Velarde Court
Las Vegas, NV 89120

23
24
25
26
27

Stipulation for Extension of Time to Reply to Opposition to Second Motion to Amend
Page 4 of 4