Opinion
2:23-cv-00925-CDS-BNW
08-18-2023
STANLEY RANDOLPH CRANE, an individual. Plaintiff v. CLARK COUNTY, a political subdivision organized under the law of the State of Nevada DISTRICT ATTORNEYS OFFICE, a political subdivision organized under the law of the State of Nevada; DISTRICT ATTORNEY STEVEN WOLFSON, an individual; DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY MELANIE H. MARLAND, an individual; DEPUTT' DISTRICT ATTORNEY WILLIAM J. MERBACK; DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SKYLER SULLIVAN, an individual; DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY BRITTNI LEIGH GRIFFITH, an individual; DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY PARKER BROOKS, an individual, and DOES I through X, inclusive, Defendant
MUELLER & ASSOCIATES, INC., CRAIG A. MUELLER, ESQ., Nevada Bar No. 4703, Attorney for Plaintiff. STEVEN B. WOLFSON DISTRICT ATTORNEY, Craig A. Mueller, Joel K. Browning, JEFFREY S. ROGAN, ESQ., Deputy District Attorney Deputy District Attorney, Nevada Bar No. 014489, Attorney for Defendants.
MUELLER & ASSOCIATES, INC., CRAIG A. MUELLER, ESQ., Nevada Bar No. 4703, Attorney for Plaintiff.
STEVEN B. WOLFSON DISTRICT ATTORNEY, Craig A. Mueller, Joel K. Browning, JEFFREY S. ROGAN, ESQ., Deputy District Attorney Deputy District Attorney, Nevada Bar No. 014489, Attorney for Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT;S MOTION TO DISMISS AND EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DIMISS FIRST REQUEST [ECF NO. 16]
COMES NOW Plaintiff, STANLEY CRANE, by and through his attorney of record, Craig A. Mueller, Esq. of the law firm of MUELLER & ASSOCIATES, INC., and Defendants, CLARK COUNTY, CLARK COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, STEVEN B. WOFLSON, DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY MELANIE H. MARLAND, DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY WILLIAM J. MERBACK, DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SKYLER SULLIVAN, DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY BRITTNI LEIGH GRIFFITH, and DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY PARKER BROOKS (hereinafter collectively “Defendants” or “District Attorney Defendants”), by and through their attorney District Attorney STEVEN B. WOLFSON, by Deputy District Attorney JOEL K. BROWNING, and, pursuant to LR IA 6-1, hereby stipulate and request that this Court extend the deadlines regarding Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 15) (“Motion”) filed August 7, 2023. There is no hearing date.
The current deadline to file a Response to the Motion is August 21, 2023. On August 14, 2023, counsel for Plaintiff emailed a request to counsel for Defendants to inquire if counsel for Defendants would agree to a ten (10) day extension for Plaintiff to file his Response, and also extend the date by ten (10) days when Defendants may file their Reply in Support of Motion.
Good cause exists to grant the requested extension as counsel for Plaintiff is scheduled to be in trial beginning August 21, 2023, and because the Motion itself is 27 pages in length.
The parties' respective counsel have agreed on the proposed extensions to make the new deadline for Plaintiff's Response due on or before August 31, 2023, and the Defendants' Reply in Support extended an additional ten (10) days.
This is the first stipulation for extension of time to file a Response to the Motion and a Reply in Support of said Motion.
ORDER
Upon stipulation by counsel for the parties, and good cause appearing therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that responsive deadlines shall be as follows:
Plaintiff's Opposition Deadline: August 31, 2023
Defendants' Reply Deadline: September 11, 2023