From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ward v. Panasonic Corp. of N. Am.

United States District Court, District of Nevada
Oct 21, 2022
3:22-cv-00435-ART-CSD (D. Nev. Oct. 21, 2022)

Opinion

3:22-cv-00435-ART-CSD

10-21-2022

ROBIN WARD, Plaintiff, v. PANASONIC CORPORATION OF NORTH AMERICA, and DOES 1-50, inclusive Defendants.

FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP SCOTT M. MAHONEY, ESQ. Attorney for Defendant, Panasonic Corporation of North America SANTOS LAW, PLLC Theresa M. Santos, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiff


FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP SCOTT M. MAHONEY, ESQ. Attorney for Defendant, Panasonic Corporation of North America

SANTOS LAW, PLLC Theresa M. Santos, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiff

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT (FIRST REQUEST)

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the parties' counsel of record that Defendant will have an extension of time up to and including November 4, 2022 to answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. 1). Defense counsel needs additional time because he has recently been retained and needs to further investigate the facts before filing a response. This is the first request for an extension of this deadline.

IT IS SO ORDERED:


Summaries of

Ward v. Panasonic Corp. of N. Am.

United States District Court, District of Nevada
Oct 21, 2022
3:22-cv-00435-ART-CSD (D. Nev. Oct. 21, 2022)
Case details for

Ward v. Panasonic Corp. of N. Am.

Case Details

Full title:ROBIN WARD, Plaintiff, v. PANASONIC CORPORATION OF NORTH AMERICA, and DOES…

Court:United States District Court, District of Nevada

Date published: Oct 21, 2022

Citations

3:22-cv-00435-ART-CSD (D. Nev. Oct. 21, 2022)