Opinion
2:22-cv-00867-CDS-DJA
04-27-2023
MICHAEL ROGERS, an individual; NIKITA WRIGHT, an individual, Plaintiffs, v. LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT; JOSEPH LOMBARDO, in his individual capacity; ALFREDO QUINTERO, individually; PRAVEEN RAJ, individually; DOE OFFICERS I - IV, individually, Defendants. v.
MCLETCHIE LAW Margaret A. McLetchie, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 10931 Leo S. Wolpert, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 12658 Pieter M. O'Leary, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 15297 Attorneys for Plaintiffs MARQUIS AURBACH Jackie V. Nichols, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 14246 Attorneys for Defendants
MCLETCHIE LAW Margaret A. McLetchie, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 10931 Leo S. Wolpert, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 12658 Pieter M. O'Leary, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 15297 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
MARQUIS AURBACH Jackie V. Nichols, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 14246 Attorneys for Defendants
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND PLAINTIFFS' REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT (SECOND REQUEST)
DANIEL J. ALBREGTS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The Parties, Michael Rogers and Nikita Wright (“Plaintiffs”), by and through their counsel of record, and Defendants, the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (“LVMPD”), Sheriff Joseph Lombardo, Alfredo Quintero, and Praveen Raj, (collectively, “LVMPD Defendants”), by and through their respective counsel (collectively, “the Parties”), hereby agree and jointly stipulate to the following:
1. The Parties agree that the deadline for Plaintiffs to file a Reply in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint shall be rescheduled from April 21, 2023, to May 5, 2023.
2. Plaintiffs filed the Stipulation and Order to Extend Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint (first request) on April 21, 2023. (See ECF No. 30.)
3. On April 25, 2023, the Court denied the Parties' Stipulation and Order to Extend Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint without prejudice for failure to comply with Local Rule IA 6-1(a) because the Stipulation and Order did not provide a reason for the requested extension. (See ECF No. 32.)
4. This second request for an extension of time is not sought for any improper purpose or to delay. The Parties are litigating several matters together, including this matter, and recently stipulated to extend the deadline for Defendants to file their Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint. (See ECF No. 28.) Plaintiffs' counsel has also had extensive family obligations requiring counsel to assist a family member with treatment for serious medical conditions. As such, the Parties agree that due to scheduling conflicts limiting Plaintiffs' counsel's ability to timely and adequately reply in support of their Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint, the deadline for Plaintiffs to file their Reply shall be extended from April 21, 2023, to May 5, 2023.
5. This is the second request for an extension of this deadline.
6. The Parties both submit that the instant stipulation is being offered in good faith and not for the purpose of delay.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
IT IS SO ORDERED that the parties Stipulation (ECF No. 34) is GRANTED. Plaintiff's shall file their reply by May 5, 2023.