Opinion
2:22-cv-00475-APG-VCF
04-21-2022
DANIEL COYNE, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated; DAVID DENTON, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated; and SEAN BOLLIG, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendant.
Marquis Aurbach Nick D. Crosby, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 8996 Santoro Whitmire James E. Whitmire, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 6533 SGRO & ROGER Anthony P. Sgro Nevada Bar No. 3811 Kelly B. Stout Nevada Bar No. 12105 MARQUIS AURBACH CHTD. Nicholas D. Crosby Nevada Bar No. 8996 Jordan W. Montet Nevada Bar No. 14743 Attorneys for Defendant Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department
Marquis Aurbach Nick D. Crosby, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 8996
Santoro Whitmire James E. Whitmire, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 6533
SGRO & ROGER
Anthony P. Sgro Nevada Bar No. 3811
Kelly B. Stout Nevada Bar No. 12105
MARQUIS AURBACH CHTD.
Nicholas D. Crosby Nevada Bar No. 8996
Jordan W. Montet Nevada Bar No. 14743
Attorneys for Defendant Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department
STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR DEFENDANT LVMPD TO FILE REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS (SECOND REQUEST)
Defendant Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (hereinafter “Defendant” or “LVMPD”) by and through its attorneys of record, Nick D. Crosby, Esq. and Jordan W. Montet, Esq., with the law firm of Marquis Aurbach, and James E. Whitmire, Esq. with the law firm of Santoro Whitmire, and Plaintiffs Coyne, Denton, and Bollig (“Plaintiffs”), by and through their counsel of record, Kelly B. Stout, Esq. with the law firm of Sgro & Roger, hereby stipulate and agree as follows:
1. On March 23, 2022, Defendant LVMPD filed its Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 7];
2. On April 6, 2022, Plaintiffs filed their Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 10];
3. Pursuant to LR 7-2, the deadline for Defendant LVMPD to file its Reply in support of its Motion to Dismiss (“Reply”) would have been April 20, 2022;
4. On May 14, 2022, the Court issed an Order granting the Parties Stipulation to extend LVMPD's time to file its Reply [ECF No. 15];
5. The Parties have agreed to further extend the deadline by which Defendant must file its Reply to April 22, 2022.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
ORDER
Based on the Parties' foregoing Stipulation and for good cause appearing, IT IS SO ORDERED that Defendant LVMPD's last day to file a Reply in Support of its Motion to Dismiss is April 22, 2022.