Lobato v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department et al

Filing 229

ORDER Granting 227 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages re 216 Motion for New Trial, 215 Motion, 214 Motion for Judgment, 213 Motion. Omnibus Response due by 3/11/2025. Responses due by 3/25/2025. Signed by Magistrate Judge Elayna J. Youchah on 3/3/2025. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ALZ)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Rajan O. Dhungana NV Bar# 13102 FEDERAL PRACTICE GROUP 7320 S. Rainbow Blvd., Ste. 102-360 Las Vegas, NV 89139 O: 714.491.8188 rdhungana@fedpractice.com Designated Resident Nevada Counsel for Plaintiff Kirstin Blaise Lobato Elizabeth Wang* LOEVY & LOEVY 2060 Broadway, Ste. 460 Boulder, CO 80302 O: 720.328.5642 elizabethw@loevy.com David B. Owens* Megan Pierce* LOEVY & LOEVY 311 N. Aberdeen St., 3rd Fl. Chicago, IL 60607 O: 312.243.5900 megan@loevy.com *Admitted pro hac vice Counsel for Plaintiff Kirstin Blaise Lobato UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 15 16 17 KIRSTIN BLAISE LOBATO, Plaintiff, 18 v. 19 LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, NEVADA, THOMAS THOWSEN, and JAMES LAROCHELLE, 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Defendants. ) ) Case No. 2:19-cv-01273 ) ) Judge Richard F. Boulware, II ) ) Magistrate Judge Elayna J. Youchah ) ) STIPULATION TO EXTEND ) BRIEFING SCHEDULE OF ) DEFENDANTS’ POST-TRIAL ) MOTIONS AND FOR PLAINTIFF ) TO FILE A RESPONSE IN EXCESS ) OF THE PAGE LIMIT ) ) (Second Request) ) Plaintiff Kirstin Blaise Lobato, by and through counsel of record, and Defendants Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, Thomas Thowsen, and 1 1 James LaRochelle, through their counsel of record, hereby stipulate to the following: 2 1. Judgment was entered against Defendants in this matter on January 6, 2025. 3 4 5 6 Dkt. 207. 2. Defendants filed a motion for a new trial and a motion for judgment as a matter of law on February 3, 2025. Dkts. 214, 216. 3. The parties filed a stipulation extending Plaintiff’s deadline to respond to 7 these motions from February 18, 2025 to March 7, 2025 and also stipulating 8 to Plaintiff filing a single omnibus response to both motions. Dkt. 221. 9 4. The parties now further stipulate to an extension to March 11, 2025, for 10 Plaintiff to file her response, due to undersigned counsel having to travel on 11 March 4th and 5th and an oral argument before the Missouri Court of Appeals 12 on March 5th in Holmes v. Zellers, Case No. ED112676 (which was initially 13 scheduled for February 19th but was rescheduled due to inclement weather). 14 5. Plaintiff’s counsel has conferred with counsel for Defendants and the parties 15 have agreed to this extension of time. 16 17 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, 18 19 20 21 22 /s/David B. Owens One of Plaintiff’s Attorneys /s/Craig Anderson_______ One of Defendants’ Attorneys 23 24 25 26 27 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Rajan O. Dhungana NV Bar# 13102 FEDERAL PRACTICE GROUP 7320 S. Rainbow Blvd., Ste. 102-360 Las Vegas, NV 89139 rdhungana@fedpractice.com O: 714.491.8188 Designated Resident Nevada Counsel for Plaintiff Kirstin Blaise Lobato Craig Anderson Kathleen Wilde Marquis Aurbach Coffing 1001 Park Run Drive Las Vegas, NV 89145 T: (702) 942-2136 canderson@maclaw.com Counsel for Defendants David B. Owens * Megan Pierce* Loevy & Loevy 311 North Aberdeen St., 3rd Floor Chicago, IL 60607 T: (312) 243-5900 F: (312) 243-5902 megan@loevy.com *Admitted pro hac vice Counsel for Plaintiff Kirstin Blaise Lobato Elizabeth Wang* Loevy & Loevy 2060 Broadway, Ste. 460 Boulder, CO 80302 T: (312) 243-5900 F: (312) 243-5902 elizabethw@loevy.com *Admitted pro hac vice Counsel for Plaintiff Kirstin Blaise Lobato 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 3 1 ORDER 2 IT IS SO ORDERED that the above Stipulation is hereby GRANTED. 3 Plaintiff shall have until March 11, 2025, to file her omnibus response. Responses 4 5 6 shall be due March 25, 2025. DATED this 3rd day of March, 2025. ____________________________________ U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 4

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?