Free Stipulation - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 Russell K. Ryan I
2 MOTSCHIEDLER, MICHAELIDES & WISHON, LLP y
1690 West Shaw Avenue, Suite 200
3 Fresno, California 93711
Telephone (559) 439-4000 §
4 Facsimile (559) 439-5654
5 Admitted Pro Hoc Vice
6 Attorneys for Plaintiff QC CONSTRUCTION
PRODUCTS, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company
7 i
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
10
QC CONSTRUCTION PRODUCTS, Case No. CV ’03 1997 PHX ROS I
H LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Q
12 Company, STIPULATION FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME TO
13 Plaintiff, REPLY TO MOTIONS FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT (First
14 v. Request)
15 I
COHILL’S BUILDING SPECIALTIES, i
16 INC. and MICHAEL couiu.,
1 7 Defendants.
18 AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS.
19 I
Pursuant to LRCiv 7.3(a) of the Rules of Practice of the United States
20
District Court, District of Arizona, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED between the parties in
21 the above-referenced matter that Plaintiff and Counterdefendant QC Construction
22 Products, LLC ("Plaintiff") shall have until October 21, 2005 to reply to Defendants and
23 Counterclaimants’ ("Defendants") opposition to Plaintiff’ s motion for summary
24 judgment currently pending before this court.
25 This is the first request for an extension of time with respect to Plaintiff s
26 reply. Good cause exists for the extension in light of the fact that counsel of record for
27 Plaintiff, Russell K. Ryan, is preparing for trial in state court in California in a case
M¤TS¤H¤E¤LER· 28 entitled DMP Development Corporation, Inc. v. City of Chowchilla, et al., Madera
MICHAELIDES
$z.£'ViZ‘,?é“.:.';.':t*Z .... _ 1 _
;;ii§‘lEtE§‘2é%'S§i§§tTJ¤¤ s ‘ : “ - v- • • - * 6 ‘ Qgmgqtgl U E mo _r=*s -•v_•·.» . ag e,. ' age 0
03767/0003//151784.WPD to Motions for Summary Judgment

1 County Superior Court Case No. MCV025375. Plaintiff believes that the requested I
2 extension is reasonable and will not unduly delay resolution of the issues raised by the
3 motion. For these reasons, Defendants have agreed to allow Plaintiff until October 21, q
4 2005 to file a reply. Thus, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court permit Plaintiff E
5 through and including October 21, 2005 to reply to Defendants’ response. i
6 Furthermore, in light of the courtesies extended to Plaintiff by Defendant in
7 this regard, IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED between the parties in the above—referenced _
8 matter that Defendants shall also have until October 21, 2005 to reply to Plaintiffs I
9 opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment currently pending before this
10 court. This is also the first request for an extension of time with respect to Defendants’ q
11 reply.
Dated this 6th day of October 2005. ’
12
13 LANG & BAKER, PLC MOTSCHIEDLER, MICHAELIDES
14 & WISHON, LLP
15 5
1 6 By: /s/ By: /s/ I
Kent A. Lang, Esq. Russell K. Ryan, Esq.
17 William G. Klain, Esq. 1690 West Shaw Avenue, Suite 200
8233 Via Paseo Del Norte Fresno, California 93711
18 Suite C-100 Attomeys for Plaintiff/ p
Scottsdale, Arizona 85258 Counterdefendant
19 Attomeys for Defendants/
Counterclaimants y
20
21
22
23 A
24
25 _
26
27
Morscmeutzn, 28
MICHAELIDES
%§§'$Z'.?£t.5bfC .... - 2 -
§2ii§l§5E3Y£%8i€3Y4`Joo C so : -cv- ’ ' - ' 9 I Q§tl-HH ‘· · ensio • ° ‘ 9 8 • RW! ,· age 0
03767/0003//151784.WPD to Motions for Summary Judgment

Case 2:03-cv-01997-ROS

Document 114

Filed 10/06/2005

Page 1 of 2

Case 2:03-cv-01997-ROS

Document 114

Filed 10/06/2005

Page 2 of 2