From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Montgomery v. Etreppid Techs.

United States District Court, District of Nevada
Oct 12, 2022
3:06-cv-00056-PMP-VPC (D. Nev. Oct. 12, 2022)

Opinion

3:06-cv-00056-PMP-VPC 3:06-cv-00145-PMP-VPC

10-12-2022

DENNIS MONTGOMERY, an individual; and MONTGOMERY FAMILY TRUST, a California Trust, Plaintiff, v. ETREPPID TECHNOLOGIES, L.L.C., a Nevada Limited Liability Company; WARREN TREPP, an individual; DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; and DOES 1 through 10, Defendants. AND ALL RELATED CASE(S)

ANDREW D. PARKER, ESQ. (pro hac vice forthcoming) Arizona Bar No. 028314 PARKER DANIELS KIBORT LLC, ADAM R. FULTON, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 11572 LOGAN G. WILLSON, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 14967 JENNINGS & FULTON, LTD. Attorneys for Proposed Intervenor U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE JAMES POWERS, ESQ. Trial Attorney Civil Div., Federal Programs Branch Attorney for United States of America


ANDREW D. PARKER, ESQ. (pro hac vice forthcoming) Arizona Bar No. 028314 PARKER DANIELS KIBORT LLC, ADAM R. FULTON, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 11572 LOGAN G. WILLSON, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 14967 JENNINGS & FULTON, LTD. Attorneys for Proposed Intervenor

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE JAMES POWERS, ESQ. Trial Attorney Civil Div., Federal Programs Branch Attorney for United States of America

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE REPLY MOTION

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED between Michael Lindell, by and through his attorney of record, Adam R. Fulton, Esq., of the law firm of Jennings & Fulton, Ltd., and the United States of America, by and through its counsel, James R. Powers, Esq., of the Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch, U.S. Department of Justice, to extend the deadline for Michael Lindell to file his Reply Brief in support of the Motion to Intervene and to Lift Protective Order (the “Reply”). The Reply is due on October 13, 2022. The Parties stipulate and agree to allow Mr. Lindell an additional week, until October 21st, 2022 to file the Reply. The extension is requested for the following reasons:

1. Due to the complexity of the issues raised in the subject motions additional time is needed by the Mr. Lindell to prepare the Reply.

2. The Opposition seeks to prevent Mr. Lindell to intervene into this matter, and additional time is needed to respond to arguments of this magnitude.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Montgomery v. Etreppid Techs.

United States District Court, District of Nevada
Oct 12, 2022
3:06-cv-00056-PMP-VPC (D. Nev. Oct. 12, 2022)
Case details for

Montgomery v. Etreppid Techs.

Case Details

Full title:DENNIS MONTGOMERY, an individual; and MONTGOMERY FAMILY TRUST, a…

Court:United States District Court, District of Nevada

Date published: Oct 12, 2022

Citations

3:06-cv-00056-PMP-VPC (D. Nev. Oct. 12, 2022)