Toth v. Harris & Harris, Ltd.

Full title: BONNIE TOTH, Plaintiff, v. HARRIS & HARRIS LTD, Defendant.

Court: United States District Court, District of Nevada

Date published: Dec 2, 2022

2:22-cv-01756-RFB-DJA (D. Nev. Dec. 2, 2022)

Opinion

2:22-cv-01756-RFB-DJA

12-02-2022

BONNIE TOTH, Plaintiff, v. HARRIS & HARRIS LTD, Defendant.

FREEDOM LAW FIRM GERARDO AVALOS, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 15171 Attorneys for Plaintiff, Bonnie Toth KRAVITZ SCHNITZER JOHNSON WATSON & ZEPPENFELD, CHTD. GINA M. MUSHMECHE, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 10411 Attorneys for Defendant, Harris & Harris, LTD.

DANIEL J. ALBREGTS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

FREEDOM LAW FIRM

GERARDO AVALOS, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 15171

Attorneys for Plaintiff, Bonnie Toth

KRAVITZ SCHNITZER JOHNSON WATSON & ZEPPENFELD, CHTD.

GINA M. MUSHMECHE, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 10411

Attorneys for Defendant, Harris & Harris, LTD.

STIPULATION AND ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINE FOR HARRIS & HARRIS, LTD. TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

[SECOND REQUEST FOR EXTENSION]

DANIEL J. ALBREGTS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

COMES NOW, Defendant, HARRIS & HARRIS, LTD. (“Defendant”), and Plaintiff, BONNIE TOTH, by and through their respective counsel of record, stipulate and agree to extend I the deadline to January 6, 2023 for Defendant to answer or otherwise plead in response to Plaintiff's Complaint.

This is Defendant's second request for an extension, which it requested from Plaintiff in order to allow Defendant additional time to investigate the factual allegations of the Complaint and to explore settlement possibilities. Plaintiff has no opposition to Defendant's request for an extension.

This request is made in good faith and not for delay. No additional requests for extensions are contemplated.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

ORDER

IT IS SO ORDERED.