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)
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?