Opinion
2:19-cv-01327-GMN-BNW
11-23-2022
YURIDIA CHAVEZ-HERRERA, Plaintiffs, v. SHAMROCK FOODS COMPANY, an Arizona foreign corporation; JOSE PAZ; DOES II through X; and ROE CORPORATIONS I through X, inclusive, Defendants.
John D. Tennert, III Esq. (SBN 11728) Wade Beavers, Esq. (SBN 13451) FENNEMORE CRAIG, P.C. Attorneys for Defendants CLAGGETT & SYKES LAW FIRM Sean K. Claggett, Esq. (SBN 8407) Brian Blankenship, Esq. (SBN 11522) Joseph N. Mott, Esq. (SBN 12455) Scott E. Lundy, Esq. (SBN 14235) and Benjamin J. Bingham, Esq. (SBN 7280) Ida M. Ybarra, Esq. (SBN 11327) BENSON & BINGHAM Attorneys for Plaintiff
John D. Tennert, III Esq. (SBN 11728) Wade Beavers, Esq. (SBN 13451) FENNEMORE CRAIG, P.C. Attorneys for Defendants
CLAGGETT & SYKES LAW FIRM Sean K. Claggett, Esq. (SBN 8407) Brian Blankenship, Esq. (SBN 11522) Joseph N. Mott, Esq. (SBN 12455) Scott E. Lundy, Esq. (SBN 14235) and Benjamin J. Bingham, Esq. (SBN 7280) Ida M. Ybarra, Esq. (SBN 11327) BENSON & BINGHAM Attorneys for Plaintiff
FOURTH STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR DEFENDANTS TO FILE THEIR REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE LIABILITY EXPERT
Pursuant to LR IA 6-1, Plaintiff Yurida Chavez-Herrera (“Plaintiff”), by and through her undersigned counsel, and Defendants Shamrock Foods Company and Jose Paz (collectively, “Defendants”), by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate and agree as follows:
1. On September 21, 2022, Defendants filed their Motion to Substitute Liability Expert (ECF No. 64) and Motion to Determine that NOSHA is the Applicable Standard Herein (ECF No. 65) (collectively, the “Motions”).
2. On October 5, 2022, Plaintiff filed her Responses to Defendants' Motion to Substitute Liability Expert (ECF No. 69) and Motion to Determine that NOSHA is the Applicable Standard Herein (ECF No. 68).
3. The Parties filed three stipulations to extend Defendants' time to file replies in support of the Motions to allow the Parties time to engage in discussions and negotiations that may resolve some of the issues in the Motions (ECF Nos. 70, 74, 76). The deadline for Defendants to file
their replies in support of the Motions was extended by successive stipulations of the Parties from October 11, 2022 to October 28, 2022 (ECF Nos. 71, 75, 77).
4. The Parties stipulate and agree that Defendants may file their reply in support of their Motion to Substitute Liability Expert (ECF No. 64) on or before November 28, 2022.
5. The Parties stipulate and agree that Defendants may withdraw their Motion to Determine that NOSHA is the Applicable Standard Herein (ECF No. 68).
6. Pursuant to LR IA 6-1, Defendants' counsel submits that the failure to file the stipulation prior to October 28, 2022 was the result of excusable neglect. Prior to October 28, 2022, Plaintiff's counsel agreed to allow additional time for Defendants to file a reply in support of their Motion to Substitute Liability Expert (ECF No. 64) and withdraw their Motion to Determine that NOSHA is the Applicable Standard Herein (ECF No. 68). Defendants' counsel inadvertently failed to finalize and file a draft stipulation exchanged between the Parties before October 28, 2022. Since then, Defendants have retained new counsel. On November 15, 2022, the Court entered its Order granting Defendants' motion to substitute counsel (ECF No. 79).
7. Plaintiff's counsel has graciously agreed to allow Defendants' new counsel up to and including November 28, 2022 to file and serve their reply in support of their Motion to Substitute Liability Expert (ECF No. 64).
This is the fourth request to extend time for Defendants to file their reply. This extension is sought in good faith and not for purpose of unduly delaying discovery or trial.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
Dated: November 21, 2022.
IT IS SO ORDERED: