Dittmar v. City of North Las Vegas

District Court, D. Nevada·Decided August 4, 2021·No. 2:17-cv-02916·Unknown

Opinion

1 MELANIE A. HILL, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 8796 2 MELANIE HILL LAW PLLC 1925 Village Center Circle, Suite 150 3 Las Vegas, NV 89134 Tel: (702) 362-8500 4 Fax: (702) 362-8505 Email: Melanie@MelanieHillLaw.com 5 Attorney for Plaintiff Pamela Dittmar 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 10 ***** 11 12 PAMELA DITTMAR, Case No. 2:17-cv-02916-JAD-BNW 13 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION TO EXTEND THE PARTIES’ REPLY 14 v. DEADLINES FOR ONE DAY 15 CITY OF NORTH LAS VEGAS, a municipal (Ninth Request) corporation, 16 Defendant. [ECF No. 111] 17 18 NOW COMES the Plaintiff, Pamela Dittmar, by and through her attorneys, Melanie A. 19 Hill and Melanie Hill Law PLLC, and Defendant, City of North Las Vegas, by and through its 20 attorneys, R. Todd Creer, Kaitlin H. Paxton, and Kamer Zucker Abbott, who hereby stipulate that 21 the deadline for Plaintiff to file her response to the currently pending dispositive motion be extended 22 from the current deadline of August 2, 2021 up to an including August 9, 2021. 23 This is the ninth request for an extension of the dispositive motion deadline. The first request 24 was by stipulation to extend the dispositive motion deadline thirty (30) days from the extended 25 discovery cutoff deadline to complete the remaining two depositions. The second request was by 26 motion due to Plaintiff’s counsel’s ongoing illness with Covid-19 symptoms. The third request was 27 by stipulation due to Plaintiff’s counsel’s immediate family member’s emergency hospitalization for 28 1 nearly one week. The fourth request was by stipulation due to Plaintiff’s counsel’s significant 2 injuries from two separate accidents. The fifth request was by stipulation due to Plaintiff’s counsel’s

3 significant injuries from two separate accidents to allow her to have additional diagnostic tests, pain 4 management, and give her additional time from her original estimate on a requested extension to 5 treat and heal. The sixth request was made by stipulation to allow Plaintiff’s counsel additional time 6 to obtain assistance with the formatting and preparation of the response exhibits and citations to the 7 same in the response because her paralegal had a medical procedure last Friday and could not assist 8 counsel due to a medical procedure. This seventh request was by stipulation due to an acute gastro 9 illness that Plaintiff’s counsel was suffering from. This eighth request was by stipulation due to 10 Plaintiff’s counsel’s continued injuries that have gotten worse and now require Plaintiff’s counsel to 11 get a wrist injection and two nerve blocks and two nerve ablations. The wrist injection and 12 numerous doctors’ appointments and physical therapy visits occurred last week and the nerve 13 procedures are scheduled to occur next week on July 27 and 29 preventing counsel from working 14 those days due to the medication and cause her difficulty working this week due to the increased 15 pain. It was also due to Plaintiff’s counsel’s prescheduled vacation for the Fourth of July holiday 16 and the following week and a half that coincided with the reply deadline. This ninth request is by 17 stipulation due Plainitff’s counsel’s continued pain making it difficult for her to sit for more than 2 18 hours at a time to work and because she had to cancel her nerve procedures. Counsel for Plaintiff 19 was supposed to have nerve procedures on her back last week that she was unable to have due to the 20 Covid-19 pandemic because they were to take place in a surgery center setting and the numbers are 21 so high that counsel did not think it was safe to do so. As a result, counsel for plaintiff is dealing 22 with back and neck pain that make it difficult for her to work for more than two hours at a time. The 23 additional time will allow her to complete the reply and accommodate her pain and the limited time 24 she can work each day. This request is also made to accommodate a technical issue creating video 25 clips from a deposition and counsel for Plaintiff needs to re-request the video from the court 26 reporting company. Given the dispositive nature of this motion, counsel requested, and the parties 27 stipulated, to this additional extension due to Plaintiff’s counsel’s injuries and pain and this technical 28 1 issue so that Ms. Dittmar is not prejudiced in her case due to counsel’s injuries from a fall and rear 2 end car accident in April. 3 As soon as it became apparent to counsel for Plaintiff that additional time was necessary to 4 finalize the reply, counsel sent an email to counsel for Defendant this morning requesting this 5 additional extension. 6 In support of this Stipulation and Order, the parties state as follows: 7 1. The current deadline to file replies to the currently pending dispositive motions is 8 August 2, 2021. When the parties first entered into a stipulation to extend the dispositive motion 9 deadline, it was to extend the dispositive motion deadline to thirty (30) days from the extended 10 discovery cutoff deadline to complete the remaining two depositions. When the parties next 11 entered into a stipulation to extend the dispositive motion deadline, it was to extend the dispositive 12 motion deadline thirty (30) days due to Plaintiff’s counsel’s ongoing illness with Covid-19 13 symptoms. The parties then entered into a stipulation for an additional seven (7) days due to 14 Plaintiff’s counsel’s family member’s health emergency. The parties then stipulated to extend the 15 dispositive motion deadline due to Plaintiff’s counsel’s significant injuries from two separate 16 accidents to allow Plaintiff’s counsel to have additional diagnostic tests, pain management, and 17 additional time from her original estimate on a requested extension to treat and heal. The parties 18 again stipulated to an extension to allow Plaintiff’s counsel addition time to prepare seek assistance 19 in preparing her exhibits that she needs to cite to in the response and declarations. Due to Plaintiff’s 20 counsel’s continued pain from two separate accidents, she was also not able to sit and work for long 21 periods of time and the exhibit formatting and preparation, in addition to the response preparation is 22 very time consuming and her pain has increased due to time spent sitting and working and standing 23 and working at her standing desk for lengthy periods of time. As a result of needing to take lengthy 24 breaks to reduce the pain, counsel for Plaintiff sought additional time and assistance to complete the 25 response and exhibits necessitating the final two stipulations to extend the response and reply 26 deadlines. 27 2. The parties stipulated to extend the reply deadline after Plaintiff’s counsel’s wrist 28 injection occurred and her nerve block, and nerve ablations were recommended and scheduled. 1 Plaintiff’s counsel further informed counsel for Defendant that she had a wrist injection and 2 numerous doctors’ appointments, including physical therapy visits, last week necessitating this

3 extension request in addition to a prescheduled vacation over the fourth of July holiday. The nerve 4 procedures were scheduled to occur last week on July 27 and 29, however counsel had to cancel 5 them due to the Covid numbers increasing substantially because counsel did not think it was safe to 6 spend two days in a surgery center. As a result, counsel for plaintiff is dealing with back and neck 7 pain that make it difficult for her to work for more than two hours at a time. The additional time will 8 allow her to complete the reply and accommodate her pain and the limited time she can work each 9 day. This request is also made to accommodate a technical issue creating video clips from a 10 deposition and counsel for Plaintiff needs to re-request the video from the court reporting company.

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

Dittmar v. City of North Las Vegas, (D. Nev. 2021).

Dittmar v. City of North Las Vegas (Dittmar v. City of North Las Vegas) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Creedon v. Taubman
8 F.R.D. 268 (N.D. Ohio, 1947)
Canup v. Mississippi Valley Barge Line Co.
31 F.R.D. 282 (W.D. Pennsylvania, 1962)