Coleman v. Telles

Opinion

ANDRE M. LAGOMARSINO, ESQ. (#6711) 1 TAYLOR N. JORGENSEN, ESQ. (#16259) CRISTINA A. PHIPPS, ESQ. (#16440) 2 CORY M. FORD, ESQ. (#15042) 3 3005 West Horizon Ridge Pkwy., Suite 241 Henderson, Nevada 89052 4 Telephone: (702) 383-2864 Facsimile: (702) 383-0065 5 aml@lagomarsinolaw.com 6 taylor@lagomarsinolaw.com cristina@lagomarsinolaw.com 7 JULIE RAYE, ESQ. (#10967) 8 8350 W. Sahara Ave., Suite 110 Las Vegas, Nevada 89117 9 Telephone: (702) 478-7600 10 Facsimile: (702) 366-1653 julie@thegracelawfirm.com 11 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Jessica Coleman, 12 Aleisha Goodwin, Noraine Pagdanganan, And Rita Reid 13

14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

15 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

16 JESSICA COLEMAN, an individual; CASE NO: 2:24-CV-00930-APG-MDC ALEISHA GOODWIN, an individual; 17 NORAINE PAGDANGANAN, an 18 individual; and RITA REID, an individual; COUNTER-DEFENDANTS’ / PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION EXTEND 19 Plaintiffs, DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO COUNTERCLAIMANT ROBERT 20 vs. TELLES’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO DISMISS 21 ROBERT TELLES, an individual; and COUNTERCLAIMANT / DEFENDANT 22 CLARK COUNTY, a political subdivision ROBERT TELLES’S FIRST AMENDED of the State of Nevada; COUNTERCLAIM 23 Defendant. (ECF NOS. 56 & 76) 24 AND ALL RELATED CLAIMS. 25

27 1 COME NOW Plaintiffs / Counter-Claimants (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”), by and through 2 their counsel of record, and hereby submit their Motion Extend Deadline To Respond To 3 Counterclaimant Robert Telles’s Opposition To Plaintiffs’ Motion To Dismiss Counterclaimant 4 / Defendant Robert Telles’s First Amended Counterclaim (ECF Nos. 56 & 76). This Motion is 5 made and based upon the pleadings and papers on file herein, the Points and Authorities attached 6 hereto, and any argument which the Court may entertain. 7 I. INTRODUCTION 8 Currently before the Court is Counterclaimant / Defendant Robert Telles’s (“Telles”) 9 First Amended Counterclaim (the “Amended Counterclaims”) (ECF No. 51), Plaintiffs’ Motion 10 to Dismiss Telles’s Amended Counterclaims (the “Motion to Dismiss”) (ECF No. 56), and 11 Telles’s Opposition to the same (the “Opposition”) (ECF No. 76). Telles filed his Opposition on 12 Monday, April 14, 2025, rendering Plaintiffs’ reply due on Monday, April 21, 2025. Plaintiffs’ 13 main counsel will be out of jurisdiction from Thursday, April 17, 2025, through Monday, April 14 21, 2025, and therefore requests additional time to draft and file Plaintiffs’ reply to Telles’s 15 Opposition. 16 II. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY 17 On September 18, 2024, Telles filed his original counterclaims against Plaintiffs. See 18 ECF No. 31. Telles brought claims against the Plaintiffs for (1) abuse of process, (2) intentional 19 infliction of emotional distress, and (3) civil conspiracy. Plaintiffs moved to dismiss Telles’s 20 counterclaims on October 9, 2024. See ECF No. 32. On February 5, 2025, after briefing on the 21 issue was complete, the Court issue an Order Granting in Part Motion to Dismiss Counterclaims 22 (the “Order”). See ECF No. 45. Per the Order, Telles’s claims were dismissed, in whole or in 23 part, with leave to amend. See ECF No. 45. 24 Telles filed his Amended Counterclaims on March 4, 2025. See ECF No. 51. The 25 Amended Counterclaim brought forth four claims against Plaintiffs: (1) abuse of process, (2) 26 intentional infliction of emotional distress, (3) civil conspiracy, and (4) slander per se. Plaintiffs 27 then filed their Motion to Dismiss on March 18, 2025. See ECF No. 56. After being granted an 1 extension to do so, Telles filed his Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Dismiss on April 14, 2025. 2 See ECF No. 76. Under the current briefing scheduling, Plaintiffs’ reply to Telles’s Opposition 3 is due April 21, 2025. 4 III. LEGAL STANDARDS 5 Fed. R. Civ. P. (“FRCP”) 6(b)(1) holds that, when an act must be done within a specified 6 time, the court may extend the time for good cause if the request for an extension is made before 7 the original time or its extension expires. The rule should be liberally construed to effectuate the 8 general purpose of seeing that cases are tried on their merits. Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 9 624 F.3d 1253, 1258-59 (9th Cir. 2010). When determining if the good cause standard has been 10 met, the court focuses on the diligence of the moving party. Saxana v. Martinez-Hernandez, 2024 11 WL 728657, at *1 (D. Nev. 2024) (citing Green Aire for Air Conditioning W.L.L. v. Salem, 2020 12 WL 58279, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 6, 2020) (“Rule 16(b)’s good cause inquiry focuses primarily 13 on the movant's diligence.”)). Additionally, the carelessness of a party is not compatible with a 14 finding of diligence or grant of relief. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 15 (9th Cir. 1992). 16 IV. LEGAL ARGUMENT 17 Plaintiffs’ Motion to Extend is timely under existing precedents and rules of civil 18 procedure. The original deadline to file Plaintiffs’ reply to Telles’s Opposition is April 21, 2025. 19 The instant motion is filed on Wednesday, April 16, 2025, making it compliant with the 20 requirements of FRCP 6(b)(1). Additionally, Plaintiffs’ have been diligent in filing this request 21 for an extension as Telles’s Opposition was filed on Monday, April 14, 2025. This also supports 22 the conclusion that Plaintiffs have not been careless in seeking this extension. Finally, allowing 23 Plaintiffs’ an extension of the deadline to reply to Telles’s Opposition supports the purpose of 24 ensuring that the instant case is tried on its merits as it allows Plaintiffs’ counsel to thoroughly 25 review Telles’s Opposition and draft a thorough, well-researched reply. 26 The attorney mainly responsible for handling the briefing in this matter, Ms. Jorgensen, 27 will be out of jurisdiction through Monday, April 21, 2025. Given that the originally anticipated 1 || deadline to reply was moved as a result the extension given to Telles to file his Opposition, the 2 || Plaintiffs seek relief from the Court to allow their counsel to produce a thorough reply while 3 || working around previously scheduled commitments. Specifically, Plaintiffs request that the 4 || Court extend the deadline to file their reply to Telles’s Opposition to Wednesday, April 30, 2025. 5 || V. CONCLUSION 6 Plaintiffs timely bring this Motion to Extend the current deadline to file their reply to 7 || Telles’s Opposition and respectfully request that the Court approve moving said deadline from 8 |} Monday, April 21, 2025, to Wednesday, April 30, 2025. 9 DATED this 16" day of April, 2025. 10 LAGOMARSING/ LAW Lonbead Cape ORE OMARSINO, ESQ. (#6711) 12 TAYLOR N. JORGENSEN, ESQ. (#16259) CRISTINA P. VALENTINE, ESQ. (#16440) 13 CORY M. FORD, ESQ. (#15042) 3005 W. Horizon Ridge Pkwy., #241 14 Henderson, Nevada 89052 Telephone: (702) 383-2864 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 16

17 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED: 20 Dated: April 17, 2025 21 ( oz ANDREW P. GORDON CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27

Pooe A of §