Opinion
3:23-CV-00110-MMD-CSD
04-20-2023
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff, v. DIAMOND PLASTICS CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1-10, inclusive Defendant.
Sarah Ferguson (NSBN 14515) PARSONS BEHLE & LATIMER Attorney for Plaintiff Union Pacific Railroad Company SMITH, JOHNSON, ALLEN, CONNICK & HANSEN Jared J. Krejci, Esq. (pro hac vice application forthcoming) Counsel for Defendant Jerry C. Carter, Esq. (NSBN 5905) Katlyn C. Mathy, Esq. (NSBN 16276) SIERRA CREST BUSINESS LAW GROUP Local Counsel for Defendant
Sarah Ferguson (NSBN 14515)
PARSONS BEHLE & LATIMER
Attorney for Plaintiff Union Pacific Railroad Company
SMITH, JOHNSON, ALLEN, CONNICK & HANSEN
Jared J. Krejci, Esq.
(pro hac vice application forthcoming)
Counsel for Defendant
Jerry C. Carter, Esq. (NSBN 5905)
Katlyn C. Mathy, Esq. (NSBN 16276)
SIERRA CREST BUSINESS LAW GROUP
Local Counsel for Defendant
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING PLAINTIFF UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY'S DEADLINE TO OPPOSE DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION FOR STAY
(FIRST REQUEST)
Plaintiff Union Pacific Railroad Company (“Union Pacific”) and Defendant Diamond Plastics Corporation (“Diamond Plastics,” together with Union Pacific, the “Parties”) by and through their attorneys of record have met and conferred regarding the deadline for Union Pacific to respond to Diamond Plastics' Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Stay (ECF No. 11). The Parties previously agreed to a brief extension between themselves. Now the Parties plan to engage in settlement discussions, so seek leave from the Court for an additional extension of Union Pacific's time to oppose Diamond Plastic's motion until May 19, 2023.
The forgoing request is made in good faith and not for purposes of delay.
IT IS SO ORDERED.