Opinion
3:23-cv-00014-LRH-CLB
02-07-2023
BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD SIGNALMEN, Plaintiff v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
(FIRST REQUEST)
LARRY R. HICKS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Defendant Union Pacific Railroad Company (“Union Pacific”) and Plaintiff Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen (“BRS”) stipulate for an extension of time for Union Pacific to respond to BRS' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 8), and in support whereof avers as follows:
1. BRS filed its Complaint in this action (ECF No. 1) on January 10, 2023, and served it upon Union Pacific's registered agent on January 18, 2023. Union Pacific is to answer or otherwise respond to BRS' Complaint on March 10, 2023 (ECF No. 11).
2. On January 27, 2023, BRS filed its Motion for Summary Judgment (Motion). Union Pacific's response currently is due February 17, 2023.
3. The parties have conferred and, due to the nature of the legal and factual issues presented by the Motion, the parties agree to a continuation of the date for Union Pacific respond to the Motion to March 31, 2023.
4. On or before April 28, 2023, BRS will file its reply to the Motion.
5. This stipulation is for good cause and not for purposes of delay.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
COZEN O'CONNOR Karl O. Riley (Nevada Bar No. 12077)
Michael E. Langton (Nevada Bar No. 290) Law Offices of Michael E. Langton
Richard S. Edelman (admitted pro hac vice) Mooney, Green, Saindon, Murphy & Welch, P.C.
ORDER
For good cause appearing, IT IS SO ORDERED.