Opinion
2:20-cv-00769-KJD-DJA
04-21-2023
KEYHERRA GREEN, Plaintiff, v. LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, a political subdivision of the State of Nevada and the County of Clark and operating CLARK COUNTY DETENTION CENTER CCDC; NAPHCARE, INC., a foreign corporation, doing business in State of Nevada and is the Medical Care Provider for the Clark County Detention Center; FRED MERRICK; LORA CODY; MENENLYN ELIZAN; RAY MONTENEGRO; GWENDOLYN MYERS; and DOES 4-10, inclusive, Defendants.
PETER GOLDSTEIN LAW CORP Peter Goldstein MALCOM P. LAVERGNE & ASSOC. Malcom P. LaVergne Attorneys for Plaintiff KAEMPFER CROWELL Lyssa S. Anderson Ryan W. Daniels Attorneys for Defendants Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, Fred Merrick and Lora Cody
PETER GOLDSTEIN LAW CORP Peter Goldstein MALCOM P. LAVERGNE & ASSOC. Malcom P. LaVergne Attorneys for Plaintiff
KAEMPFER CROWELL Lyssa S. Anderson Ryan W. Daniels Attorneys for Defendants Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, Fred Merrick and Lora Cody
SECOND STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DEADLINE FOR PLAINTIFF TO FILE REPLY TO LVMPD DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF GREEN'S MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO FILE FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT [ECF NO. 100]
(SECOND REQUEST)
DANIEL J. ALBREGTS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
COMES NOW, Plaintiff, Keyherra Green, and Defendants, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, Fred Merrick and Lora Cody, by and through their counsel of record, and hereby submit this Stipulation and Order to Extend Deadline for Plaintiff to file a Reply to Defendants' Response to Plaintiff Green's Motion for Leave of Court to File Fourth Amended Complaint [ECF No. 100] from April 24, 2023 to May 1, 2023. This is the second request for an extension of time to file a reply and is not made for an improper purpose. This request is made in order for the parties to further confer to determine whether they can reach a stipulation to resolve disputed issues regarding the proper scope of the proposed amended pleadings. The parties have made progress regarding many of the arguments raised in defendants' opposition to plaintiff's motion for leave to amend and believe they can resolve the remaining issues in order to obviate further motion practice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.