Opinion
2:23-cv-00105-RFB-BNW
01-27-2023
SALLY LENNON, an Individual; Plaintiff, v. LINCARE INC., a Foreign Corporation; DOES 1 through 25, inclusive; and ROE CORPORATIONS 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants. Exhibit Description Page Nos.
Dora V. Lane Nevada Bar No. 8424 Steven J.T. Washington Nevada Bar No. 14298 HOLLAND & HART LLP Attorneys for Defendant Lincare Inc.
Dora V. Lane Nevada Bar No. 8424 Steven J.T. Washington Nevada Bar No. 14298 HOLLAND & HART LLP Attorneys for Defendant Lincare Inc.
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR DEFENDANT TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AND ORDER
(FIRST REQUEST)
Defendant, LINCARE INC., a Foreign Corporation (“Lincare”), by and through its attorneys, Holland & Hart LLP, hereby submit this Motion for Extension of Time to Answer or Otherwise Respond to the Complaint (First Request). Lincare has conferred with Plantiffs Counsel's office, who does not oppose the relief requested in this Motion. This is the first motion to extend time to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint. In support of this unopposed Motion, the undersigned states as follows:
1. This matter was recently received by local Nevada counsel.
2. Lincare removed this action to this Court on January 19, 2023. See ECF No. 1.
3. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 81(c)(2)(C), the answer or other response is due by January 26, 2023.
4. Counsel for Lincare is working diligently to verify important facts in order to be able to respond to the allegations in Plaintiff's Complaint, but some facts remain to be ascertained.
5. Counsel for Lincare contacted Plaintiff's counsel to discuss an extension for Lincare to respond to the Complaint. See Exhibit A. However, Kyle Tatum, Plaintiff's counsel responsible for this matter, was unavailable.
6. Counsel for Lincare called Plaintiff's counsel's office again to seek a stipulation to extend the deadline for Lincare to file its responsive pleading. The receptionist for Plaintiff's counsel's office stated that she spoke with Mr. Tatum and he approved Lincare's request for an extension to respond to Plaintiff's Complaint. Again, Mr. Tatum unavailable to speak with the undersigned. Following said conversation, the undersigned prepared an e-mail confirming the parties' agreement and informing Plaintiff's counsel that a stipulation would be sent over for Plaintiff's counsel's approval. See Exhibit B.
7. The undersigned sent over a stipulation for Plaintiff's counsel's review and approval. However, as of this Motion, the undersigned has not heard back from Plaintiff's counsel with respect to the proposed stipulation. See Exhibit C. In an abundance of caution, Lincare submits this Motion to extend the deadline to respond to the Complaint. Lincare does not anticipate that Plaintiff will oppose this Motion.
8. Local counsel needs additional time to meaningfully review the matter before counsel can respond to the Complaint. As such, Lincare seeks a 14-day extension of Lincare's response deadline. This Motion is filed in good faith and not for the purpose of delay.
WHEREFORE, Lincare respectfully requests that this Court grant this Motion extending Defendant's time to respond to the Complaint by 14 days. This matter was removed to this Court on January 19, 2023. With the extension, the new deadline to answer or otherwise respond would be February 9, 2023. This is Lincare's first request for extension.
ORDER
IT IS SO ORDERED
INDEX OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit
Description
Page Nos.
Exhibit A
Email to Kyle Tatum dated January 26, 2023
001 - 002
Exhibit B
Email to Kyle Tatum Re: preparing a Stipulation for Approval dated January 26, 2023
003 - 004
Exhibit C
Email to Kyle Tatum Re: following up with respect to the proposed stipulation dated January 26, 2023
005 - 007