Opinion
3:21-cv-00419-ART-CLB
11-15-2022
KEMP JONES, LLP Nathanael R. Rulis, Esq. Breanna K. Switzler, Esq. Attorneys for Defendant/Counter-Claimant HINES HAMPTON PELANDA LLP Angela Lizad, Esq. Christine M. Emanuelson. Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant
KEMP JONES, LLP Nathanael R. Rulis, Esq. Breanna K. Switzler, Esq. Attorneys for Defendant/Counter-Claimant
HINES HAMPTON PELANDA LLP Angela Lizad, Esq. Christine M. Emanuelson. Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant
ORDER APPROVING STIPULATION TO EXTEND BRIEFING DEADLINES FOR DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND PLAINTIFF'S REPLY [FIRST REQUEST]
ANNE R. TRAUM UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, by and through its counsel of record, Hines Hampton Pelanda LLP, and Defendant and Counter-Claimant Dustin Drummond, by and through his counsel of record, Kemp Jones, LLP, hereby stipulate and agree as follows:
1. On November 2, 2022, Nationwide filed a “Notice of Motion and Motion by Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company for Summary Judgment or, in the alternative, Partial Summary Judgment.” See ECF 34.
2. Pursuant to Local Rule 7-2, any Opposition to Nationwide's Motion for Summary Judgment is due on November 23, 2022, and any Reply to the Motion would be due on December 7, 2022.
3. Counsel believe and agree that there is good cause to extend the deadlines for the Opposition and Reply to the Motion for Summary Judgment given the holiday season, including Thanksgiving, Christmas, and New Year's Day, as well as to allow Drummond's new counsel time to prepare in light of the unexpected departure of the lead attorney on the case.
4. Accordingly, the parties agree to extend the deadlines otherwise required by Local Rule 7-2 as follows:
a. Drummond shall have until December 14, 2022, to file any Opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment.
b. Nationwide shall have until January 13, 2023 to file any Reply to the Motion for Summary Judgment.
5. The stipulated extension to the parties' proposed briefing schedule will not prejudice the parties, nor will it impact any other Court-imposed deadlines established in this case. This is the first request for a continuance of these briefing deadlines.
IT IS SO ORDERED.