Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Timmons v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department

United States District Court, D. Nevada

April 24, 2019

TOLAVIUS TIMMONS, Plaintiff,
v.
LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT; CAPTAIN ANDREW PERALTA; ARAMARK; BONNIE POLLEY; LT. YANCEY TAYLOR; SGT. FRANC CADET; LEONEL VERDUZCO; SHERIFF JOE LOMBARDO, Defendants.

          Joel D. Odou (State Bar No. 7468) Christina M. Mamer (State Bar No. 13181) Susana Santana (State Bar No. 13753) Wood, Smith, Henning & Berman LLP Attorneys for Aramark Services, Inc.

          ARAMARK SERVICES INC.'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE RESPONSIVE PLEADING [FIRST REQUEST]

         Defendant Aramark Services, Inc., by and through its counsel, Wood, Smith, Henning & Berman, LLP, hereby moves this Court for a thirty (30) day extension of time to answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff, Tolavius Simmons' Second Amended Complaint [ECF 8], filed on October 11, 2018, in the above-entitled action.

         This motion is made and based upon the pleadings and papers on file, and the memorandum of points and authorities herein.

         MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

         I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         On October 11, 2018, Plaintiff filed his Second Amended Complaint [ECF 8]. Thereafter, on January 29, 2019, the Court entered an Order [ECF 11] allowing certain causes of action in Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint to proceed. A Summons [ECF 12] was issued to Aramark on January 30, 2019, and Aramark was then served with Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint on April 4, 2019. As such, an Answer or other response to the Complaint is due on or before April 24, 2019. Upon receipt of Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint, Aramark began the process of reviewing Plaintiff's Complaint and obtaining the pertinent records, which are necessary to effectively respond to Plaintiff's Complaint and defend the instant action.[1] Despite Aramark's diligent efforts, further time is needed to respond to Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint.

         II. LEGAL ANALYSIS

         Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b) provides:

1) In General. When an act may or must be done within a specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend the time:
(A) with or without motion or notice if the court acts, or if a request is made, before the original time or its extension expires; or
(B) on motion made after the time has expired if the party failed to act because of excusable neglect.
(2) Exceptions. A court must not extend the time to act under Rules 50(b) and (d), 52(b), 59(b), (d) and (e), and 60(b).

LR IA 6-1 provides in pertinent part:

(a) A motion or stipulation to extend time must state the reasons for the extension requested and must inform the court of all previous extensions of the subject deadline the court granted. . . . A request made after the expiration of the specified period will not be granted unless the movant or attorney demonstrates that the failure to file the motion before the deadline expired was the result of excusable neglect. Immediately below the title of the motion or ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.