Opinion
2:21-cv-01768-RFB-DJA 2:21-cv-01780-RFB-EJY
08-26-2022
SARA SANGUINETTI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; Plaintiffs, v. NEVADA RESTAURANT SERVICES, INC., Defendant. RAYMOND D. SPEIGHT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; Plaintiffs, v. NEVADA RESTAURANT SERVICES,INC., Defendant.
KEMP JONES, LLP J. Randall Jones, Esq. Michael J. Gayan, Esq Mona Kaveh, Esq. Attorneys for Defendant Nevada Restaurant Services, Inc. Gary Klinger Gary M. Klinger* MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC George Haines, Esq. Gerardo Avalos, Esq. FREEDOM LAW FIRMD avid Hilton Wise, Esq. Joseph M. Langone, M. Anderson Berry, Esq.* Gregory Haroutunian, Esq.* CLAYEO C. ARNOLD, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORP. Esq.* WISE LAW FIRM, PLC David K. Lietz* MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC Michael Kind, Esq. KIND LAW Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Class *pro hac vice
KEMP JONES, LLP J. Randall Jones, Esq. Michael J. Gayan, Esq Mona Kaveh, Esq. Attorneys for Defendant Nevada Restaurant Services, Inc.
Gary Klinger Gary M. Klinger* MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC George Haines, Esq. Gerardo Avalos, Esq. FREEDOM LAW FIRMD avid Hilton Wise, Esq. Joseph M. Langone, M. Anderson Berry, Esq.* Gregory Haroutunian, Esq.* CLAYEO C. ARNOLD, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORP. Esq.* WISE LAW FIRM, PLC David K. Lietz* MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC Michael Kind, Esq. KIND LAW Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Class *pro hac vice
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' AMENDED CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT [ECF NO. 20] [SECOND REQUEST]
Pursuant to Local Rules IA 6-1 and 7-1, Defendant Nevada Restaurant Services, Inc. (“Defendant”), and Plaintiffs Sara Sanguinetti, Raymond D. Speight, David Dietzel, Patricia Saavedra, and Nina S. Kuhlmann (“Plaintiffs”), by and through their counsel of record, hereby stipulate, agree, and respectfully request that the Court extend the deadline for Defendant to file its answer to Plaintiffs' Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint (“Amended Complaint”), filed on November 16, 2021 (ECF No. 20), from August 26, 2022, to September 9, 2022.
1. On November 16, 2021, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint. ECF No. 20. Defendant requested and obtained an extension to respond to the Amended Complaint from November 30, 2021, to December 21, 2021. ECF No. 25.
2. On December 21, 2021, Defendant filed its Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 26), which was heard on August 12, 2022. The Court granted in part and denied in part Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. ECF No. 46. Therefore, Defendants' Answer to the Amended Complaint would be due on or before August 26, 2022.
3. Defendant's counsel respectfully requests an extension to file its answer to Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint in light of their current schedule, other deadlines in this matter that the parties are working on, and to allow sufficient time for Defendant to review and assist in the preparation of the answer. Plaintiffs do not object to Defendant's request.
4. This request is not for purposes of delay. This is the second request for an extension to file a response to the Amended Complaint, but the first request for an extension to file an answer to the Amended Complaint after the Motion to Dismiss was ruled upon.
IT IS SO ORDERED: