Hawatmeh et al v. City of Henderson et al

Filing 67

ORDER granting 66 Stipulation TO EXTEND TIME FOR DEFENDANTS TO REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT ECF NO. 64 (FIRST REQUEST). Reply due April 16, 2024. Signed by Judge Andrew P. Gordon on 3/27/2024. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - CAH)

10001 Park Run Drive
Las Vegas, Nevada 89145
[phone] FAX: [phone]

MARQUIS AURBACH

1 Marquis Aurbach
Craig R. Anderson, Esq.
2 Nevada Bar No. 6882
10001 Park Run Drive
3 Las Vegas, Nevada 89145
Telephone: [phone]
4 Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
5
Attorneys for Defendants
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8 IEHAB HAWATMEH, individually;
YASMEEN HAWATMEH, individually;
9 LAYTH HAWATMEH, individually and
IEHAB HAWATMEH, as Administrator of
10 the ESTATE OF JOSEPH HAWATMEH,
deceased,
11
Plaintiffs,
12
vs.
13
CITY OF HENDERSON, et. al.,
14
Defendants.
15
16

Case Number:
2:22-cv-01786-APG-DJA
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO
EXTEND TIME FOR DEFENDANTS
TO REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS’
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO
DISMISS FIRST AMENDED
COMPLAINT (ECF NO. 64)
(FIRST REQUEST)

Defendants, by and through their attorney of record, Marquis Aurbach, and

17 Plaintiffs, by and through their attorney of record, Rogert P. Croteau & Associates, Ltd.,
18 hereby stipulate and agree as follows:
19

1.

The Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint on January 15, 2024.

20 (ECF No. 59).
21

2.

The Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint on

22 January 29, 2024. (ECF No. 60)
23

3.

On February 12, 2024, the parties submitted a stipulation to extend the

24 deadline to oppose the Motion to Dismiss until March 18, 2024. (ECF No. 61). Said
25 stipulation was granted by the Court on February 13, 2024. (ECF No. 62)
26

4.

On March 18, 2024, the parties submitted a stipulation to extend the deadline

27 to oppose the Motion to Dismiss until March 20, 2024. (ECF No. 63). Said stipulation was
28 granted by the Court on March 19, 2024. (ECF No. 65)
Page 1 of 2
MAC:01434-015 5422112_1

1

5.

Plaintiffs filed their Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss on March 19, 2024.

2 (ECF No. 64)
3

6.

Defendants’ Reply is currently due March 26, 2024.

4

7.

Defense Counsel and Plaintiff’s Counsel conducted depositions in an

5 unrelated case the week of March 15-22, 2024 and Defense Counsel did not have time to
6 prepare an adequate reply.
7

8.

In addition, Defense Counsel has to prepare and travel to Pasadena,

8 California for a Ninth Circuit oral argument in Napouk v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police
9 Dep’t, 23-15726 on April 2, 2024.
10

9.

Defendants respectfully request that the deadline to file their Reply to

10001 Park Run Drive
Las Vegas, Nevada 89145
[phone] FAX: [phone]

MARQUIS AURBACH

11 Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Motion to Dismiss be extended until April 16, 2024
12

10.

13

IT IS SO STIPULATED this 25th day of March, 2024.

This Stipulation is made in good faith and not for the purpose of delay.

14 MARQUIS AURBACH

ROGER P. CROTEAU & ASSOCIATES,
LTD.

15
By: s/Craig R. Anderson
Craig R. Anderson, Esq.
Nevada Bar No. 6882
17
10001 Park Run Drive
Las Vegas, Nevada 89145
18
Attorneys for Defendants
16

By:

s/Timothy E. Rhoda
Roger P. Croteau, Esq.
Nevada Bar No. 4958
Timothy E. Rhoda, Esq.
Nevada Bar No. 7878
Las Vegas, Nevada 89102
Attorney for Plaintiffs

19
20
IT IS SO ORDERED.
21
22
23
24

United States District Court Judge
Dated: March 27, 2024

25
26
27
28
Page 2 of 2
MAC:01434-015 5422112_1