Walden et al v. State of Nevada, et al

Filing 153

ORDER granting ECF No. 151 Stipulation : Response to ECF No. 133 Motion to Certify Class due by 3/12/2018. Reply due by 4/1/2018. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 3/7/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 RICHARD I. DREITZER, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 6626 DAVID S. KAHN, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 7038 JAMES T. TUCKER, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 12507 WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ, EDELMAN & DICKER LLP 300 South Fourth Street, Eleventh Floor Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 Tel: 702.727.1400/Fax: 702.727.1401 Richard.Dreitzer@wilsonelser.com David.Kahn@wilsonelser.com James.Tucker@wilsonelser.com Attorneys for Defendant The State of Nevada, ex rel. its Department of Corrections 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 11 12 13 DONALD WALDEN JR, NATHAN ECHEVERRIA, AARON DICUS, BRENT EVERIST, TRAVIS ZUFELT, TIMOTHY RIDENOUR, and DANIEL TRACY on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, 14 Plaintiffs, 15 Case No.: 3:14-cv-00320-MMD-WGC STIPULATION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO FILE RESPONSIVE PLEADINGS AND ORDER (Second Request) vs. 16 17 THE STATE OF NEVADA, EX REL. ITS NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, and DOES 1-50, 18 Defendant. 19 20 Defendant State of Nevada, ex rel. its Department of Corrections (“NDOC”), and Plaintiffs, 21 Donald Walden Jr., Nathan Echeverria, Aaron Dicus, Brent Everist, Travis Zufelt, Timothy 22 Ridenour, and Daniel Tracy, on behalf of themselves and all others allegedly similarly situated 23 (“Plaintiffs”) (collectively referred to as “the Parties”), by and through their respective counsel of 24 record, hereby stipulate and agree to extend the time for the Parties to file the following responsive 25 pleadings: 26 Currently, the deadline for NDOC to file their opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class 27 Certification is March 7, 2018. 28 additional time to file their opposition up to and including March 12, 2018. The Parties have further 1271898v.2 (ECF No. 141) The Parties have stipulated to allow NDOC 1 stipulated that the Plaintiffs’ reply will be due on or before April 1, 2018. The Parties are requesting 2 this extension due to counsels’ professional commitments and existing workload and the fact that 3 Counsel for NDOC is proceeding to trial on March 26, 2018. 4 Currently, the deadline for Plaintiffs to file their opposition to Defendants’ Motion for 5 Decertification is March 7, 2018. (ECF No. 141.) The Parties have stipulated to allow Plaintiffs 6 additional time to file their opposition up to and including March 12, 2018. The Parties have further 7 stipulated that the Defendants’ reply will be due on or before April 1, 2018. The Parties are 8 requesting this extension due to counsels’ professional commitments and existing workload and the 9 fact that Counsel for NDOC is proceeding to trial on March 26, 2018. 10 Counsel certifies that this request is made in good faith and not for the purposes of delay. 11 This is the second request for an extension of time to file the above-mentioned responsive pleadings. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Dated this 7th day of March, 2018. Dated this 7th day of March, 2018. WILSON ELSER MOSKOWITZ EDELMAN & DICKER LLP THIERMAN BUCK LLP /s/ Richard I. Dreitzer ____________________________________ Richard I. Dreitzer Nevada Bar. No. 6626 300 South 4th Street - 11th Floor Las Vegas, NV 89101-6014 Attorneys for Defendants The State of Nevada, ex rel. its Department of Corrections /s/ Joshua Buck _____________________________________ Mark R. Thierman Nevada Bar No. 8285 Joshua D. Buck Nevada Bar No. 12187 Leah L. Jones Nevada Bar No. 13161 7287 Lakeside Drive Reno, Nevada 89511 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 20 21 22 ORDER 23 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 7th DATED this _________ day of March, 2018. 26 ______________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 27 28 2 1271898v.2

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?