Opinion
2:22-cv-01068-APG-BNW
08-04-2022
PETER LYKINS, an individual; MARIA LYKINS, an individual, Plaintiffs, v. LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, in its official capacity; DORI KOREN, as an individual and in his capacity as a Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department Officer; DOE OFFICERS 1-15, as individuals and in their capacity as Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department Officers; and ROE DEFENDANTS 1-10, Defendants.
LAW OFFICES OF KRISTINA WILDEVELD & ASSOCIATES LISA A. RASMUSSEN, ESQ. NEVADA BAR NO. 7491 RICHARD BRYANT, ESQ. NEVADA BAR NO. 15511 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS PETER AND MARIA LYKINS MARQUIS AURBACH COFFING CRAIG R. ANDERSON, ESQ. NEVADA BAR NO. 6882 JACKIE V. NICHOLS, ESQ. NEVADA BAR NO. 14246 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT AND CAPTAIN DORI KOREN
LAW OFFICES OF KRISTINA WILDEVELD & ASSOCIATES LISA A. RASMUSSEN, ESQ. NEVADA BAR NO. 7491 RICHARD BRYANT, ESQ. NEVADA BAR NO. 15511 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS PETER AND MARIA LYKINS
MARQUIS AURBACH COFFING CRAIG R. ANDERSON, ESQ. NEVADA BAR NO. 6882 JACKIE V. NICHOLS, ESQ. NEVADA BAR NO. 14246 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT AND CAPTAIN DORI KOREN
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND LVMPD DEFENDANTS' REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PARTIAL DISMISSAL (FIRST REQUEST)
The Parties, Plaintiffs Peter Lykins and Maria Lykins (“Plaintiff”), by and through their counsel of record, Lisa A. Rasmussen., Esq. and Richard Bryant, Esq., of Law Offices of Kristina Wildeveld & Associates, and Defendants Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (“LVMPD”) and Captain Dori Koren (“Koren”) (hereinafter “LVMPD Defendants”), by and through their counsel of record, Craig R. Anderson, Esq. and Jackie V. Nichols, Esq., of Marquis Aurbach, and hereby agree and jointly stipulate the following:
1. LVMPD Defendants filed its Motion for Partial Dismissal on July 13, 2022 [ECF No. 6];
2. Plaintiffs' Opposition to LVMPD Defendants' Motion for Partial Dismissal was filed on July 27, 2022 [ECF No. 10];
3. LVMPD Defendants' counsel had a personal emergency that arose and is unable to meet the deadline of August 3, 2022 currently scheduled for LVMPD Defendants' Reply in Support of Motion for Partial Dismissal;
4. The Parties have agreed to a 2-day extension for LVMPD Defendants' Reply in Support of Motion for Partial Dismissal;
5. Accordingly, the deadline for LVMPD Defendants' Reply in Support of Motion for Partial Dismissal, currently due on August 3, 2022, be extended to and including Friday, August 5, 2022;
6. This is the Parties' first request to extend the deadline to LVMPD Defendants' Reply in Support of Motion for Partial Dismissal; and
7. This Stipulation is being entered in good faith and not for purposes of delay.
ORDER
The above Stipulation is hereby GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.