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)
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?