Reyes v. Keefe Group, LLC
Filing
6
ORDER granting ECF No. 5 Motion to Extend Time : Keefe Group, LLC answer/response to ECF No. 1 Complaint due by 3/5/2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb on 2/7/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)
Case 3:18-cv-00004-LRH-WGC Document 5 Filed 02/07/18 Page 1 of 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
MICHELLE D. ALARIE, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 11894
ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP
3770 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 200
Las Vegas, Nevada 89169
Telephone: 702.678.5070
Facsimile: 702.878.9995
malarie@armstrongteasdale.com
DANIEL O’TOOLE, ESQ. (will comply with LR IA 11-2 within 45 days)
Missouri Bar No. 38051
ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP
7700 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 1800
St. Louis, Missouri 63105
Telephone: 314.621.5070
Facsimile: 314.621.5065
dotoole@armstrongteasdale.com
Attorneys for Defendant Keefe Commissary Network,
LLC
12
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
13
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA
14
15
JOHANA REYES,
16
17
18
19
20
Plaintiff,
vs.
KEEFE GROUP, LLC and DOE Defendants
I-X,
Defendants.
Case No.: 3:18-cv-00004-LRH-WGC
ORDER GRANTING
UNOPPOSED MOTION TO EXTEND
DEFENDANT’S DEADLINE TO RESPOND
TO COMPLAINT AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER
[FIRST REQUEST]
21
22
Defendant Keefe Commissary Network, LLC (incorrectly identified in the Complaint as
23
Keefe Group, LLC) (“Keefe”), by and through its counsel, Armstrong Teasdale LLP, hereby
24
respectfully requests an extension of Keefe’s deadline to respond to the Complaint from February 7,
25
2018, to March 5, 2018. Plaintiff Johana Reyes (“Reyes”) has consented to the requested extension.
26
This is the first request to extend this particular deadline.
27
On January 4, 2018, Reyes filed her Complaint against Keefe alleging claims for sexually
28
hostile work environment, disability discrimination, and retaliation. See ECF No. 1. The Summons
1
Case 3:18-cv-00004-LRH-WGC Document 5 Filed 02/07/18 Page 2 of 4
1
and Complaint were served on Keefe on January 17, 2018. See ECF No. 4. Therefore, pursuant to
2
Rule 12(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Keefe’s response to the Complaint is due on
3
February 7, 2018.
4
On February 5, 2018, undersigned counsel contacted Reyes’ counsel to discuss stipulating to
5
extend Keefe’s response deadline. Reyes’ counsel agreed to continue Keefe’s answer deadline from
6
February 7, 2018, to March 5, 2018. Counsels, however, were not able to agree on language for a
7
stipulation, therefore, Keefe files this unopposed motion.
8
Good cause for this extension exists. Counsel for Keefe was recently retained, and therefore,
9
requires additional time to adequately review and consider this matter in anticipation of responding
10
to the Complaint. This short extension will not prejudice any parties nor affect any current deadlines
11
because this case is still in its infancy – no parties have answered the Complaint and a case
12
management order had not been entered. This stipulation is entered into in good faith and is not
13
intended to unduly delay the proceedings.
14
///
15
///
16
///
17
///
18
///
19
///
20
///
21
///
22
///
23
///
24
///
25
///
26
///
27
///
28
///
2
Case 3:18-cv-00004-LRH-WGC Document 5 Filed 02/07/18 Page 3 of 4
1
2
Accordingly, Keefe requests that an order be entered extending the deadline for Keefe to
respond to the Complaint from February 7, 2018, to March 5, 2018.
3
4
Dated this 7th day of February, 2018.
ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP
5
By: /s/ Michelle D. Alarie________________
MICHELLE D. ALARIE, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 11894
3770 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 200
Las Vegas, Nevada 89169
Telephone: 702.678.5070
Facsimile: 702.878.9995
malarie@armstrongteasdale.com
6
7
8
9
10
DANIEL O’TOOLE, ESQ.
Missouri Bar No. 38051
7700 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 1800
St. Louis, Missouri 63105
dotoole@armstrongteasdale.com
11
12
13
Attorneys for Defendant Keefe Commissary
Network, LLC
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
ORDER
IT IS SO ORDERED.
____________________________________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
DATED: February 7, 2018
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?