Opinion
2:20-cv-01761-APG-BNW
01-28-2022
LATESHA WATSON, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF HENDERSON; BRISTOL ELLINGTON; KEVIN ABERNATHY; KENNETH KERBY; RICHARD DERRICK; RICHARD MCCANN; NICK VASKOV; KRISTINA GILMORE; DOES I through X, inclusive, Defendants.
COOK & KELESIS, LTD. MARC P. COOK, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 004574 JULIE L. SANPEI, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 005479 Attorneys for Plaintiff, Latesha Watson PATRICK G. BYRNE, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 007636 RICHARD C. GORDON, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 009036 PAUL SWENSON PRIOR, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 009324 CHRISTIAN P. OGATA, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 15612 Defendants City of Henderson, Richard Derrick, Bristol Ellington, Nicholas Vaskov and Kristina Escamilla Gilmore CLARK HILL PLLC NICHOLAS M. WIECZOREK, Nevada Bar No. 006170 Attorney for Defendants Kevin Abernathy, Richard McCann and Kenneth Kerby
COOK & KELESIS, LTD. MARC P. COOK, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 004574 JULIE L. SANPEI, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 005479 Attorneys for Plaintiff, Latesha Watson
PATRICK G. BYRNE, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 007636 RICHARD C. GORDON, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 009036 PAUL SWENSON PRIOR, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 009324 CHRISTIAN P. OGATA, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 15612 Defendants City of Henderson, Richard Derrick, Bristol Ellington, Nicholas Vaskov and Kristina Escamilla Gilmore
CLARK HILL PLLC NICHOLAS M. WIECZOREK, Nevada Bar No. 006170 Attorney for Defendants Kevin Abernathy, Richard McCann and Kenneth Kerby
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND TIME FOR PLAINTIFF TO RESPOND TO MOTIONS TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT
(FIRST REQUEST)
(ECF 104, 109 AND 110)
Plaintiff, LaTesha Watson (“Watson”) by and through counsel of record, Marc P. Cook, Esq. of the law firm of COOK & KELESIS, LTD.; Defendants, Kevin Abernathy (“Abernathy”), Richard McCann (“McCann) and Kenneth Kerby (“Kerby”), by and through counsel of record, Nicholas M. Wieczorek, Esq. of the law firm of CLARK HILL PLLC; and Defendants City of Henderson (the "City"), Richard Derrick, Bristol Ellington, Nicholas Vaskov and Kristina Escamilla Gilmore (the "Individual City Defendants" and collectively with the City, the "City of Henderson Defendants"), by and through counsel of record, Patrick G. Byrne, Esq. of the law firm of SNELL & WILMER LLP, hereby stipulate to extend the deadline for Plaintiff to respond to Defendants Nicholas Vaskov and Kristina Escamilla Gilmore's Special Motion To Dismiss the First Amended Complaint Pursuant to NRS 41.660 (filed January 3, 2022) [ECF 104]; Defendants Kevin Abernathy, Richard McCann and Kenneth Kerby's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (filed January 14, 2022) [ECF 109]; and to Defendants City of Henderson, Richard Derrick, Bristol Ellington, Nicholas Vaskov, and Kristina Escamilla Gilmore's Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint (filed January 14, 2022) [ECF 110].
1. Defendants have filed three (3) motions which seek dismissal of all claims against them under a variety of arguments relying on various legal theories.
2. Plaintiff's Response to Vaskov's and Gilmore's Special Motion to Dismiss [ECF 104) is due on January 18, 2022. The parties have agreed to extend that deadline by 3 weeks, until Tuesday, February 8, 2022. The parties have agreed to a similar extension for the reply, which will be due on or before Tuesday, March 8, 2022.
3. Plaintiff's Response to the City Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [ECF 110] is due January 28, 2022. The parties have agreed to extend that deadline by 3 weeks, until February 18, 2022. The parties have agreed to a similar extension for the reply, which will be due on or before Friday, March 18, 2022.
4. Plaintiff's Response to Abernathy, McCann, and Kerby's Motion to Dismiss [ECF 109] is January 28, 2022. The parties have agreed to extend that deadline by 3 weeks, until February 18, 2022. The parties have agreed to a similar extension for the reply, which will be due on or before Friday, March 18, 2022.
5. As each of the Defendants have differed positions and/or relationships within the City and are alleged to have engaged in separate conduct related to Plaintiff's claims, Plaintiff needs additional time to analyze the reasoning set forth in the motions and prepare responses addressing the arguments raised by Defendants.
6. Defendants anticipate that they will need a similar extension of time to prepare replies to Plaintiff's responses.
7. The extensions are sought in good faith and not for the purpose of delay.
ORDER
IT IS SO ORDERED.