U.S. EX REL. BARNES v. CLARK COUNTY

Case No. 2:15-CV-1621 JCM (VCF).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ex rel. CHERYL NOLTE BARNES, Plaintiff(s), v. CLARK COUNTY, et al., Defendant(s).

United States District Court, D. Nevada.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 31 U.S.C. § 3729
Cause: 31 U.S.C. § 3729 False Claims Act
Nature of Suit: 375 Other Statutes: False Claims Act
Source: PACER


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

In re Cheryl Nolte, Relator, represented by Paul C. Ray , Paul C. Ray, Chtd..

In re Cheryl Nolte, Relator, represented by Gerard Dondero .

United States of America ex rel, Plaintiff, represented by Troy K. Flake , United States Attorney.

Clark County, Defendant, represented by Emily Anne Ellis , Brownstein Hyatt Farber Shreck, Kirk B. Lenhard , Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP & Laura Bielinski , Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck.

Clark County Department of Aviation, Defendant, represented by Emily Anne Ellis , Brownstein Hyatt Farber Shreck, Kirk B. Lenhard , Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP & Laura Bielinski , Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck.

McCarran International Airport, Defendant, represented by Emily Anne Ellis , Brownstein Hyatt Farber Shreck, Kirk B. Lenhard , Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP & Laura Bielinski , Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck.


ORDER

JAMES C. MAHAN, District Judge.

Presently before the court is relator Cheryl Nolte Barnes's motion for a seven-day extension to file her opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 23). Defendants do not oppose this motion, and the same will be granted. See LR IA 6-1; (ECF No. 24).

However, defendants clarify that, although omitted in relator's motion, they consented to relator's extension on the condition that relator would agree for an extension of their time to file a corresponding reply. (ECF No. 24).

Unlike relator's motion, the defendants' filing does not explain the reason for that requested extension and therefore does not comply with Local Rule IA 6-1(a). See (ECF No. 23, 24). Thus, there will be no extension of the reply deadline at this time. Any future request for an extension of time is to comply with that rule.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that relator's motion to extend time (ECF No. 23) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED.


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases