Opinion
2:19-cv-00652-JAD-CWH
01-24-2022
NEB YOU SOLOMON, an individual, Plaintiff, v. LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT; JOSEPH LOMBARDO, individually and in his official capacity as Sheriff; JOHN L. PELLETIER, an individual RICHARD E. MAUPIN, an individual; RYAN J. FRYMAN, an individual; JUAN D CONTRERAS, an individual; ALLEN J. PAVESE, an individual; BRANDON M. MEADS, an individual; FASHION SHOW MALL, LLC, a Nevada limited-liability company; UNIVERSAL PROTECTION SERVICE, LLC, a Nevada limited-liability company; ANDREW ANTONIO, an individual, EDWARDO AGUILAR, an individual, DOES I-V, individuals, Defendants.
MARQUIS AURBACH MCLETCHIE LAW Nick D. Crosby, Esq. Margaret A. McLetchie, Esq. Leo S. Wolpert, Esq.
MARQUIS AURBACH
MCLETCHIE LAW
Nick D. Crosby, Esq.
Margaret A. McLetchie, Esq.
Leo S. Wolpert, Esq.
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND LVMPD DEFENDANTS' DEADLINE TO FILE REPLY TO DISPOSITIVE MOTION
(FIRST REQUEST)
ECF No. 131
JENNIFER A. DORSEY, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Defendants, the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (the "Department" or "LVMPD"), Joseph Lombardo ("Lombardo"), John Pelletier ("Pelletier"), Richard Maupin ("Maupin"), Ryan Fryman ("Fryman"), Juan Contreras ("Contreras"), Allen Pavese ("Pavese"), and Brandon Meads ("Meads") (collectively "LVMPD Defendants"), by and through their counsel of record, Nick D. Crosby, Esq., of the law firm of Marquis Aurbach; and Plaintiff Nebyou Solomon ("Solomon"), by and through his counsel of record, Margaret A. McLetchie, Esq., and Leo S. Wolpert, Esq., of McLetchie Law, hereby stipulates and requests the following:
1. The Parties hereby agree and stipulate that LVMPD Defendants shall have an additional fourteen (14) days in which to file their Reply in Support of LVMPD Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 118).
2. Plaintiffs Response in Opposition (ECF No. 128) to LVMPD Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment was filed on January 5, 2022.
3. The current Reply deadline is January 19, 2022 and the requested extension would make the new deadline February 2, 2022.
4. This extension of time is necessary to ensure concise and appropriate briefing which will increase the likelihood that the case is decided on its merits rather than on a technicality.
5. Counsel for the Defendants was in a labor arbitration which occupied a significant amount of time and resources to prepare for and was out of the jurisdiction for personal medical reasons related to a family member.
6. This request for additional time is to ensure proper representation of the Parties' interests and quality briefing.
7. This request is made in good faith and is not sought for any improper purpose or for the purpose of delay.
ORDER
IT IS SO ORDERED: