Carley v. Gentry

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: April 28, 2022
• Docket: 2:17-cv-02670
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

Attorney General 2 CHRISTOPHER M. GUY (Bar No. 15239) Deputy Attorney General 3 State of Nevada Office of the Attorney General 4 555 East Washington Avenue Suite 3900 5 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 (702) 486-3326 (phone) 6 (702) 486-3773 (fax) Email: cguy@ag.nv.gov 7 Attorneys for Defendants James Dzurenda, Charles Daniels, 8 Sheryl Foster, Jo Gentry, Tanya Hill, Gabriela Najera, Dwight Neven, Cynthia Ruiz, Kim Thomas, and Patrick Vejar 9 LISA A. RASMUSSEN, Esq. 10 Law Offices of Kristina Wildeveld & Associates 550 East Charleston Blvd. 11 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 (702) 222-0007 (phone) 12 (702) 222-0001 (fax) Email: Lisa@veldlaw.com 13 Attorneys for Plaintiff 14 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 16 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 17 ELIZABETH CARLEY, Case No. 2:17-cv-02670-MMD-VCF 18 Plaintiff, 19 v. JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND THE JOINT PRETRIAL 20 JO GENTRY, et al., ORDER DEADLINE FROM APRIL 25, 2022, TO MAY 25, 2022 21 Defendants. 22 Plaintiff Elizabeth Carley, by and through counsel, Lisa. A. Rasmussen, and 23 Defendants, Sheryl Foster, Patrick Vejar, Jo Gentry, James Dzurenda, Charles Daniels, 24 Gabriela Najera, Tanya Hill, Dwight Neven, Cynthia Ruiz, and Kim Thomas, by and 25 through counsel, Aaron D. Ford, Nevada Attorney General, and Christopher M. Guy, 26 Deputy Attorney General, of the State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney General, hereby 27 Joint Stipulation And Order To Extend The Joint Pretrial Order Deadline From April 25, 28 2022, to May 25, 2022. 2 2022, to May 25, 2022 (30 days). Good cause supports this extensions request. Defense 3 counsel starts a trial on April 25, 2022. Defense Counsel was required to prepare for this 4 trial, and therefore the Parties requests an additional 30 days to draft the Joint Pretrial 5 Order. 6 I. INTRODUCTION 7 The Parties request an extension of the Joint Pretrial Order deadline of April 25, 8 2022. Defense counsel will be in trial the week of April 25th for case 3:17-cv-00649-MMD- 9 CSD. Therefore, the Parties requests an additional 30 days to draft the Joint Pretrial 10 Order. 11 II. LAW AND ARGUMENT 12 A. Law 13 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)1 provides: 14 (1) In General. When an act may or must be done within a specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend the time: 15 (A) with or without motion or notice if the court acts, or if a request is made, before the original time or its extension 16 expires; or (B) on motion made after the time has expired if the party 17 failed to act because of excusable neglect. 18 Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b)(1). 19 The United States Supreme Court has recognized, “Rule 6(b) gives the 20 court extensive flexibility to modify the fixed time periods found throughout the rules, 21 whether the enlargement is sought before or after the actual termination of the allotted 22 time.” Lujan v. Nat'l Wildlife Fed., 497 U.S. 871, 906 n. 7 (1990) (internal quotation marks 23 and citation omitted) (emphasis added); see also Perez-Denison v. Kaiser Found. Health 24 Plan of the Nw., 868 F. Supp. 2d 1065, 1079 (D. Or. 2012) (citing and quoting Lujan, 497 25

1 LR IA 6-1(a): “A motion or stipulation to extend time must state the reasons for the 26 extension requested and must inform the court of all previous extensions of the subject deadline the court granted.” Further, a “stipulation or motion seeking to extend the time 27 to file an opposition or reply to a motion, or to extend the time fixed for hearing a motion, must state in its opening paragraph the filing date of the subject motion or the date of the 28 subject hearing.” LR IA 6-1(c). 2 construed to effectuate the general purpose of seeing that cases (and other disputed issues) 3 are decided on the merits. Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1258 (9th Cir. 4 2010). Regarding “Good cause,” it is a non-rigorous standard that has been construed 5 broadly across procedural and statutory contexts. Id. (citing several circuits Venegas– 6 Hernandez v. Sonolux Records, 370 F.3d 183, 187 (1st Cir.2004); Thomas v. Brennan, 961 7 F.2d 612, 619 (7th Cir.1992); Lolatchy v. Arthur Murray, Inc., 816 F.2d 951, 954 (4th 8 Cir.1987)). 9 Consequently, requests for extensions of time made before the applicable deadline 10 has passed should “normally ... be granted in the absence of bad faith on the part of the 11 party seeking relief or prejudice to the adverse party.” Ahanchian, 624 F.3d at 1259 12 (quoting 4B Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 13 1165 (3d ed. 2004). 14 B. Argument 15 Defense counsel attended the pre-trail calendar call on April 5, 2022, in case 3:17- 16 cv-00649-MMD-CSD; the case scheduled for trial back in November 2021 but was 17 continued. On April 5, 2022, the District Court informed the parties that case 3:17-cv- 18 00649-MMD-CSD was number one (1) on the stack. Thus, the trial will take place starting 19 April 25th. 20 The Parties contend that the upcoming trial in case 3:17-cv-00649-MMD-CSD 21 establishes good cause to grant this extension request. The Parties do not act in bad faith. 22 The Parties seek additional time to work together to draft the Joint Pretrial Order. Thus, 23 the Parties request an extension of the Joint Pretrial Order deadline of April 25, 2022, to 24 May 25, 2022. 25 /// 26 /// 27 28 1 CONCLUSION 2 For the foregoing reasons, the Parties request an extension of the Joint Pretrial 3 || Order deadline of April 25, 2022, to May 25, 2022. 4 5

7 8 By: /s/_ Lisa A. Rasmussen By: /s/ Christopher M. Gu LISA A. RASMUSSEN, Esq. CHRISTOPHER M. GUY 9 Law Offices of Kristina Wildeveld & Deputy Attorney General Associates Office of the Nevada Attorney General 10 550 E. Charleston Blvd. 555 E. Washington Avenue, #3900 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 Attorneys for Plaintiff Attorneys for Defendants 12 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 Load ote. 15 16 DATE: 4-28-2022 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28