Opinion
2:22-cv-01329-CDS-NJK
10-04-2022
BYRD UNDERGROUND, LLC, Plaintiff, v. AUTOMATIC DATA PROCESSING, INC., Defendant
AKERMAN LLP ARIEL E. STERN, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 8276 LILITH V. XARA, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 13138 BRIAN C. BIANCO, ESQ. (to be admitted pro hac vice) JULIA R. LISSNER, ESQ. (to be admitted pro hac vice) Counsel for Defendant Automatic Data Processing, Inc. TAKOS LAW GROUP ZACHARY P. TAKOS, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 11293 STEVEN R. HART, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 15418 Counsel for Plaintiff
AKERMAN LLP
ARIEL E. STERN, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 8276
LILITH V. XARA, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 13138
BRIAN C. BIANCO, ESQ. (to be admitted pro hac vice)
JULIA R. LISSNER, ESQ. (to be admitted pro hac vice)
Counsel for Defendant Automatic Data Processing, Inc.
TAKOS LAW GROUP
ZACHARY P. TAKOS, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 11293
STEVEN R. HART, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 15418
Counsel for Plaintiff
STIPULATION TO EXTEND DEFENDANT'S TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT
(SECOND REQUEST)
Plaintiff Byrd Underground, LLC (Byrd) and Defendant Automatic Data Processing, Inc. (ADP) hereby stipulate to extend the deadline for ADP to answer, move, or otherwise plead in response to Byrd's Complaint by (30) thirty-days, from October 3, 2022, to November 2, 2022.
In support of this stipulation, Byrd and ADP state as follows:
1. Byrd filed its Complaint against ADP on August 16, 2022, ECF No. 1, and served it on September 12, 2022, ECF No. 4. ADP's current deadline to respond to the Complaint is October 3, 2022.
2. On September 28, 2022, the parties filed their first stipulation for extension of time. ECF No. 5.
3. On September 30, 2022, the Court denied the stipulation for the reasons explained in its Order. ECF No. 6.
4. The parties have reduced the amount of time requested from (45) forty-five days to (30) thirty-days.
5. The parties are agreeing to the extension because the parties are in active settlement discussions and need the time to ascertain if early resolution is possible.
6. The parties have agreed to extend the deadline for ADP to answer, move, or otherwise plead in response to Byrd's Complaint by (30) thirty-days, to November 2, 2022.
7. To the extent settlement discussions ultimately are not successful, the extension will accommodate the recent retention of ADP's counsel and allow ADP to evaluate the Complaint and determine how to respond in the most efficient manner.
8. The parties enter into this stipulation in the interest of justice and not for the purpose of undue delay. Given the very early stage of these proceedings, neither party will be prejudiced by the extension. This is the second request for an extension of time; however, the prior extension was denied.
Jointly and respectfully submitted this 3rd day of October 2022
Pursuant to the foregoing, IT IS SO ORDERED.