Opinion
2:21-CV-00573-RFB-DJA
01-23-2023
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.
William J. Braun, Esq. Pro Hac Vice Steven L. Yarmy, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF STEVEN L. YARMY Attorneys for Sierra Range Construction Gwen Rutar Mullins, Esq. HOWARD & HOWARD ATTORNEYS PLLC Attorneys for Casas Construction and Daniel J. Casas
William J. Braun, Esq. Pro Hac Vice Steven L. Yarmy, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF STEVEN L. YARMY Attorneys for Sierra Range Construction
Gwen Rutar Mullins, Esq. HOWARD & HOWARD ATTORNEYS PLLC Attorneys for Casas Construction and Daniel J. Casas
STIPULATION AND ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO FILE REPLIES TO MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DOCS. 39 and 40) (First Request)
RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
STIPULATION AND ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO FILE REPLIES TO MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (First Request)
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 are preventing the parties from adhering to the standard briefing time to file the parties respective replies to Plaintiff/Counter defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 39) and 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 their respective replies to the Motions to up to and including February 6, 2023. This is the first request to extend time for filing their respective replies to the Motions.
STIPULATION
Based on the foregoing, the parties, by and through their counsel, stipulate and agree as follows:
1. Plaintiff/Counter Defendants' date to file their Reply to Defendants' Opposition (Doc. 44) to Plaintiff/Counter Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 39) (“Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment”) should be extended such that Plaintiff/ Counter Defendants shall now have up to and including February 6, 2023 in which to file their Reply to Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment.
2. Defendants' date to file its Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition (Doc. 43) 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 Defendants shall now have up to and including February 6, 2023 in which to file their Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants' 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.
HOWARD & HOWARD ATTORNEYS PLLC BRAUN & MELUCCI, LLP
IT IS SO ORDERED.