Garmong v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency et al

Filing 32

ORDER granting ECF No. 31 Stipulation : Response to ECF No. 17 Motion to Dismiss due by 12/8/2017. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 11/30/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM) Modified on 11/30/2017 for spelling (DRM).

Download PDF
1 2 3 CARL M. HEBERT, ESQ. Nevada Bar #250 202 California Avenue Reno, NV 89509 (775) 323-5556 carl@cmhebertlaw.com 4 Attorney for plaintiff Garmong 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 7 8 GREGORY O. GARMONG, 3:17-cv-00444-RCJ-WGC 9 Plaintiff, 10 vs. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY, JOHN MARSHALL, in his official and individual capacities; BRIDGET CORNELL, in her official and individual capacities; JOANNE MARCHETTA, in her official and individual capacities; JIM BAETGE, in his official and individual capacities; JAMES LAWRENCE, in his official and individual capacities; BILL YEATES, in his official and individual capacities; SHELLY ALDEAN, in her official and individual capacities; MARSHA BERKBIGLER, in her official and individual capacities; CASEY BEYER, in his official and individual capacities; TIMOTHY CASHMAN, in his official and individual capacities; BELINDA FAUSTINOS, in her official and individual capacities; TIM CARLSON, in his official and individual capacities; AUSTIN SASS, in his official and individual capacities; NANCY McDERMID, in her official and individual capacities; BARBARA CEGAVSKE, in her official and individual capacities; MARK BRUCE, in his official and individual capacities; SUE NOVASEL, in his official and STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION (First Request) 1 2 3 4 individual capacities; LARRY SEVASON, in his official and individual capacities; E. CLEMENT SHUTE, JR., in his official and individual capacities; MARIA KIM; VERIZON WIRELESS, INC.; COMPLETE WIRELESS CONSULTING, INC., and CROWN CASTLE, 5 Defendants. 6 7 On November 10, 2017 defendants TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY; 8 JOHN MARSHALL; BRIDGET CORNELL; JOANNE MARCHETTA; JIM BAETGE; JAMES 9 LAWRENCE; BILL YEATES; SHELLY ALDEAN; MARSHA BERKBIGLER; CASEY 10 BEYER; TIMOTHY CASHMAN; BELINDA FAUSTINOS; TIM CARLSON; AUSTIN SASS; 11 NANCY McDERMID; BARBARA CEGAVSKE; MARK BRUCE; SUE NOVASEL; LARRY 12 SEVASON and E. CLEMENT SHUTE, JR. (collectively, the “TRPA” defendants) filed their 13 motion to dismiss. (# 17). Defendants CROWN CASTLE and VERIZON WIRELESS, INC. 14 filed a joinder in the motion to dismiss on November 13, 2017. (# 23). Defendants 15 COMPLETE WIRELESS CONSULTING, INC. and MARIA KIM have an extension of time 16 to file their answer or responsive motion by November 30, 2017. (# 28). The plaintiff’s 17 opposition to the motion to dismiss is currently due on November 24, 2017. 18 Given the scope and complexity of the legal issues presented in the motion to 19 dismiss, and the fact that the opposition is due the day after the Thanksgiving holiday, the 20 TRPA defendants, defendants COMPLETE WIRELESS CONSULTING, INC. and MARIA 21 KIM, and the plaintiff stipulate, under the authority of LR IA 6-1, that the plaintiff may have 22 to and including December 8, 2017 by which to file his opposition to the motion to dismiss. 23 DATED : November 21, 2017 CARL M. HEBERT, ESQ. 24 By: /S/ Carl M. Hebert Carl M. Hebert, Esq. NSB # 250 25 26 Counsel for the plaintiff 27 28 -2- 1 Continuation of Stipulation for Extension of Time to File Opposition in 3:17-cv-00444-RCJWGC 2 3 DATED : November 21, 2017 McDONALD CARANO, LLP 4 By: /S/ Matthew C. Addison Matthew C. Addison, Esq. NSB # 4201 Debbie Leonard, Esq. NSB # 8260 5 6 7 Counsel for TRPA defendants 8 9 10 DATED : November 21, 2017 NEWMEYER & DILLION, LLP By: /S/ Aaron D. Lovaas Aaron D. Lovaas, Esq. SBN # 5701 11 12 Counsel for defendants Crown Castle and Verizon Wireless, Inc. 13 14 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED: 17 18 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 DATED: __________________________ November 30, 2017 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3-

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?