Opinion
2:21-CV-00573-RFB-DJA
12-14-2022
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA for the use and benefit of CASAS CONSTRUCTION, Plaintiff, v. SIERRA RANGE CONSTRUCTION, a California corporation; PHILADELPHIA INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY, AND DOES I through V, inclusive, Defendants. SIERRA RANGE CONSTRUCTION, a California corporation; Cross-Claimant, v. CASAS CONSTRUCTION, a Nevada corporation; DANIEL J. CASAS, an individual, and ROES 1 though 5, inclusive; Cross-Defendants.
HOWARD & HOWARD ATTORNEYS PLLC GWEN RUTAR MULLINS, ESQ. Attorneys for Casas Construction and Daniel J. Casas BRAUN & MELUCCI, LLP William J. Braun, Esq. Pro Hac Vice Steven L. Yarmy, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF STEVEN L. YARMY Attorneys for Sierra Range Construction
HOWARD & HOWARD ATTORNEYS PLLC GWEN RUTAR MULLINS, ESQ. Attorneys for Casas Construction and Daniel J. Casas
BRAUN & MELUCCI, LLP William J. Braun, Esq. Pro Hac Vice Steven L. Yarmy, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF STEVEN L. YARMY Attorneys for Sierra Range Construction
STIPULATION AND ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO FILE OPPOSITIONS TO MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II JUDGE.
This Stipulation and Order is entered into by, between and among, Plaintiff/Counter defendant, CASAS CONSTRUCTION and Counter defendant DANIEL J. CASAS, (jointly referred to as “Casas Construction”) by and through their counsel of record, Gwen Rutar Mullins, Esq., of the law firm of HOWARD & HOWARD ATTORNEYS PLLC, and Defendant/Counter claimant SIERRA RANGE CONSTRUCTION (“Sierra Range”) and Defendant PHILADELPHIA INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY (“PIIC”), by and through their attorneys of record, William J. Braun, Esq. of the law firm of BRAUN & MELUCCI, LLP and Steven L. Yarmy, Esq. of the LAW OFFICES OF STEVEN L. YARMY based on the following:
Scheduling conflicts, including the upcoming holidays, have prevented and/or are preventing the parties from adhering to the standard briefing time as to Plaintiff/Counter defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 39) and as to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof (Doc. 40) (jointly “Motions”)). The parties have agreed to extend the time to file oppositions to the Motions up to and including January 10, 2023. This is the first request to extend time for filing their respective oppositions to the Motions.
STIPULATION
Based on the foregoing, the parties, by and through their counsel, stipulate and agree as follows:
1. Plaintiff's date to file its Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof (Doc. 40)(“Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment”) should be extended such that Plaintiff shall now have up to and including January 10, 2023 in which to file its Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment.
2. Defendants' date to file their Opposition to Plaintiff/Counter defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 39) (“Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment”) should be extended such that Defendants shall now have up to and including January 10, 2023 in which to file its Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment.
3. This is the First Extension Request as to the briefing of this issue.
This Stipulation is supported by good cause and is not made for purposes of delay.
IT IS SO ORDERED.