Eguizabal Valiente v. Miller

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: May 14, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-02415
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 SUInGitAedL SCtaHteAs TATttAoHrn ey 2 District of Nevada Nevada Bar No. 8264 3 VIRGINIA T. TOMOVA 4 Assistant United States Attorney Nevada Bar No. 12504 5 501 Las Vegas Blvd. So., Suite 1100 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 6 (702) 388-6533 Virginia.Tomova@usdoj.gov 7 Attorneys for the Federal Defendants 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 10 Juan Francisco Eguizabal Valiente, Sandra Case No. 2:24-cv-02415-JCM-MDC Patricia Lopez de Eguizabal, Oscar 11 Geovanny Eguizabal Lopez, Josue Arturo Stipulation and Order to Extend Time Eguizabal Lopez, and Emanuel Isaac to Answer 12 Eguizabal Lopez, (Third Request) 13 Plaintiffs, 14 v. 15 Loren K. Miller, Alejandro Mayorkas, and Ur Mendoza Jaddou, 16 Defendants. 17 18 Pursuant to Rule 6(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule IA 6-1 of 19 this Court’s Local Rules, Plaintiffs Juan Francisco Eguizabal Valiente, Sandra Patricia 20 Lopez de Eguizabal, Oscar Geovanny Eguizabal Lopez, Josue Arturo Eguizabal Lopez, 21 and Emanuel Isaac Eguizabal Lopez, and Federal Defendants Loren K. Miller, Alejandro 22 Mayorkas, and Ur Mendoza Jaddou, through undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate and 23 agree as follows: 24 Plaintiffs filed their Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and for Writ of 25 Mandamus on December 30, 2024. ECF No. 1. 26 Plaintiffs served Federal Defendants with a copy of the Summons and Complaint 27 via certified mail on January 10, 2025. 28 1 The current deadline for Federal Defendants to respond to Plaintiffs’ Complaint is 2 May 16, 2025. 3 On May 13, 2025, both counsels agreed to an additional 7-day extension for Federal 4 Defendants to respond to Plaintiffs’ Complaint. The current response due date falls in the 5 same week as counsel’s approved medical leave, and the additional time of 7 days is 6 needed to finalize the response. 7 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b), a court may, “for good cause,” extend 8 a deadline if a request is made “before the original time or its extension requires.” Fed. R. 9 Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A); see also Local Rule IA 6-1(a). The Ninth Circuit has equated good cause 10 with the exercise of due diligence. See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 11 609 (9th Cir. 1992). Good cause exists here because counsel has been diligent in 12 coordinating with agency counsel, requesting the information necessary to respond to 13 Plaintiffs’ allegations, and investigating such allegations. Nevertheless, due to counsel’s 14 approved medical leave which falls within the same week with the current deadline to file a 15 responsive pleading, additional time is needed for counsel to finalize the response pleading. 16 Accordingly, the parties, through undersigned counsel, submit this stipulation to a 17 7-day extension from May 16, 2025, to May 23, 2025, for Federal Defendants to file a 18 response to the Complaint. This is the third request for an extension of time. 19 / / / 20 21 / / / 22 23 / / / 24 25 / / / 26 27 / / / 28 1 This stipulated request is filed in good faith and not for the purposes of undue delay. 2 Respectfully submitted this 13th day of May 2025. 3 QUIROGA LAW OFFICE, PLLC SIGAL CHATTAH United States Attorney 41) /s/ Maria E. Quiroga MARIA E. QUIROGA /s/ Virginia T. Tomova >|] Nevada Bar No. 13939 VIRGINIA T. TOMOVA 7935 W. Sahara Ave., Ste. 103 Assistant United States Attorney 6|| Las Vegas, NV 89117 Attorneys for the Federal Defendants 7\| Attorney for PlaintiffS 8 9 10 11 12 ISSO ORDERED: , 13 Mp, mF — 14 App a A __ Z* Hon. aximiliano D*/Couvillie 16 Unikd States Magiés rate Judge 17 DATED: 5/14/2025 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28