B.H. v. Clark County School District

D. Nevada

B.H. v. Clark County School District

DecidedMay 23, 2025

Docket2:23-cv-00564

StatusUnknown

This text of B.H. v. Clark County School District (B.H. v. Clark County School District) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Nevada primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

B.H. v. Clark County School District, (D. Nev. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 * * *

7 B.H., a minor by and through her Parent, Case No. 2:23-CV-564 JCM (DJA) Sirbrina Bell, 8 ORDER Plaintiff(s), 9 v. 10 CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, 11 et al.,

12 Defendant(s).

13 14 Presently before the court is defendants Ryan Lewis and Kathryn Fitzgerald’s motion to 15 extend the dispositive motion deadline. (ECF No. 58). Plaintiffs B.H. a minor, by and through 16 her parent, Sirbrina Bell filed a response. (ECF No. 61). 17 Defendants request an extension to file their motion for summary judgment to May 23, 18 2025. (ECF No. 58). Plaintiffs argue that defendants fail to explain why the previous extension 19 20 was insufficient and they would be prejudiced by an extension. (ECF No. 61 at 2). 21 The court finds that good cause exists to grant defendants’ request because there is 22 excusable neglect. In determining whether excusable neglect is present, it is appropriate for a 23 district court to evaluate whether an attorney has “otherwise been diligent, the propensity of the 24 other side to capitalize on petty mistakes, the quality of representation of the lawyers . . . and the 25 26 likelihood of injustice . . . .” Pincay v. Andrews, 389 F.3d 853, 859 (9th Cir. 2004). 27 Here, defendants’ counsel was diligent in attempting to address the circumstances outside 28 of her control. She made several attempts to contact opposing counsel and filed the instant motion 1 one day after the initial deadline. More importantly, the court does not find that granting the instant 2 motion would prejudice plaintiffs. 3 Accordingly, 4 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that defendants’ motion to 5 6 extend the dispositive motion deadline (ECF No. 58) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED. 7 DATED May 23, 2025.

8 __________________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 * * *

7 B.H., a minor by and through her Parent, Case No. 2:23-CV-564 JCM (DJA) Sirbrina Bell, 8 ORDER Plaintiff(s), 9 v. 10 CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, 11 et al.,

12 Defendant(s).

13 14 Presently before the court is defendants Ryan Lewis and Kathryn Fitzgerald’s motion to 15 extend the dispositive motion deadline. (ECF No. 58). Plaintiffs B.H. a minor, by and through 16 her parent, Sirbrina Bell filed a response. (ECF No. 61). 17 Defendants request an extension to file their motion for summary judgment to May 23, 18 2025. (ECF No. 58). Plaintiffs argue that defendants fail to explain why the previous extension 19 20 was insufficient and they would be prejudiced by an extension. (ECF No. 61 at 2). 21 The court finds that good cause exists to grant defendants’ request because there is 22 excusable neglect. In determining whether excusable neglect is present, it is appropriate for a 23 district court to evaluate whether an attorney has “otherwise been diligent, the propensity of the 24 other side to capitalize on petty mistakes, the quality of representation of the lawyers . . . and the 25 26 likelihood of injustice . . . .” Pincay v. Andrews, 389 F.3d 853, 859 (9th Cir. 2004). 27 Here, defendants’ counsel was diligent in attempting to address the circumstances outside 28 of her control. She made several attempts to contact opposing counsel and filed the instant motion 1 one day after the initial deadline. More importantly, the court does not find that granting the instant 2 motion would prejudice plaintiffs. 3 Accordingly, 4 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that defendants’ motion to 5 6 extend the dispositive motion deadline (ECF No. 58) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED. 7 DATED May 23, 2025.

8 __________________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

B.H. v. Clark County School District, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bh-v-clark-county-school-district-nvd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack