4R4 Sons, LLC v. Tru G Wilhelm, Inc.

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: March 21, 2022
• Docket: 2:21-cv-01081
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5

6 4R4 SONS, LLC, Case No.: 2:21-cv-01081-GMN-NJK 7 Plaintiff, Order 8 v. [Docket No. 70] 9 TRU G. WILHELM, INC., 10 Defendant. 11 Pending before the Court is Defendant’s motion to extend the discovery and dispositive 12 motion deadlines, which was filed on an emergency basis. Docket No. 70. 13 “The filing of emergency motions is disfavored because of the numerous problems they 14 create for the opposing party and the court resolving them.” Cardoza v. Bloomin’ Brands, Inc., 15 141 F. Supp. 3d 1137, 1140 (D. Nev. 2015) (citing In re Intermagnetics America, Inc., 101 B.R. 16 191, 193-194 (C.D. Cal. 1989)). “Safeguards that have evolved over many decades are built into 17 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of this court.” Mission Power Eng’g Co. 18 v. Continental Cas. Co., 883 F. Supp. 488, 491 (C.D. Cal. 1995). A request to bypass the default 19 procedures through the filing of an emergency motion impedes the adversarial process, disrupts 20 the schedules of the Court and opposing counsel, and creates an opportunity for bad faith 21 gamesmanship. Cardoza, 141 F. Supp. 3d at 1140-41. As a result, the Court allows motions to 22 proceed on an emergency basis in only very limited circumstances. See, e.g., Local Rule 7-4(b) 23 (“Emergency motions should be rare”). 24 In addition to various technical requirements, see Local Rule 7-4(a), parties seeking 25 emergency relief must satisfy several substantive requirements. When a party files a motion on 26 an emergency basis, it is within the sole discretion of the Court to determine whether any such 27 matter is, in fact, an emergency. Local Rule 7-4(c); see also Local Rule 26-7(d). Generally 28 speaking, an emergency motion is properly presented to the Court only when the movant has 1} shown (1) that it will be irreparably prejudiced if the Court resolves the motion pursuant to the 2|| normal briefing schedule and (2) that the movant is without fault in creating the crisis that requires emergency relief or, at the very least, that the crisis occurred because of excusable neglect. 4! Cardoza, 141 F. Supp. 3d at 1142 (citing Mission Power, 883 F. Supp. at 492). If there is no 5| irreparable prejudice, sufficient justification for bypassing the default briefing schedule does not 6]| exist and the motion may be properly decided on a non-expedited basis. Cardoza, 141 F. Supp. 7| 3d at 1142-43. 8 Defendant has failed to demonstrate that its motion warrants expedited treatment. Instead, the motion will be briefed and decided in the ordinary course. In the interim, the scheduling order 10] at Docket No. 43 remains in place.! 1] IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 Dated: March 21, 2022 Nancy J. Koppe* 14 United States.Magistrate Judge 15

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ' The Court expresses no opinion herein as to the merits of the motion.