Hano v. State of Nevada

Opinion

Attorney General NATHAN M. CLAUS (Bar No. 15889) Deputy Attorney General State of Nevada Office of the Attorney General 1 State of Nevada Way, Ste. 100 Las Vegas, Nevada 89119 (702) 486-7629 (phone) (702) 486-3768 (fax) Email: nclaus@ag.nv.gov Attorneys for Defendants Jeremy Bean, Gregory Bryan, John Faulkner, Cornelius Finley, Mary Manalastas, Julie Matousek, Michael Minev, Gary Piccinini, Arianna Rhynard, Jonathan Weber and Brian Williams DAVID A. HANO, Case No. 2:19-cv-02246-GMN-EJY Plaintiff, v. JOINT REQUEST FOR A STATE OF NEVADA, EX REL NEVADA SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE AND DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et MOTION TO EXTEND DISPOSTIVE al., MOTION DEADLINE Defendants. [FIRST REQUEST] Plaintiff David Hano and Defendants Jeremy Bean, Gregory Bryan, John Faulkner, Cornelius Finley, Mary Manalastas, Julie Matousek, Michael Minev, Gary Piccinini, Arianna Rhynard, Jonathan Weber, and Brian Williams, by and through their respective counsels hereby submit their Joint Request for A Settlement Conference and Motion To Extend Dispositive Motion Deadline. This is the first request to extend the dispositive motion deadline. // // This is an offender civil rights matter. Plaintiff David Hano (Hano) is an offender who was formerly in custody of the Nevada Department of Corrections (NDOC) at High Desert State Prison (HDSP). See ECF No. 23. Hano is suing Defendants for alleged violations of his rights under the Eighth Amendment of the US Constitution. ECF No. 213. Discovery in the matter closed on November 4, 2024. ECF No. 222. The current deadline for dispositive motions is November 27, 2024. Id. A. Request for a Settlement Conference After the parties completed discovery, counsel for both parties agreed that they believe a settlement conference would likely help resolve this case in its entirety. Hano is no longer in the custody of NDOC and currently resides in Oklahoma and would request that any settlement conference be conducted via zoom or some other electronic platform. Defendants do not oppose this request. Defendants request that if this court approves and orders a settlement conference that this Court exercise its discretion and excuse the attendance of the individually named defendants from the conference. Defendants will ensure that the settlement conference is attended by individuals on behalf of Defendants who have settlement authority. Further, Defendants believe that excusing the individual Defendant’s from attendance would help further the settlement discussions and allow a more fruitful and quicker discussion. Hano indicates that he does not oppose such a request. The parties also discussed the timeline for the settlement conference and are in agreement that they are open to whatever time the Court sets this matter since there are no urgent matters that would require an expedited conference in this case. B. Request to Extend Dispositive motion Deadline Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b), the “court may, for good cause, extend the time . . . with or without motion or notice . . . if a request is made, before the original time or its by the discovery plan, scheduling order, or other order must … be supported by a showing of good cause for the extension.” In addition, “[a] request made within 21 days of the subject deadline must be supported by a showing of good cause.” Local Rule 26-3 The parties are seeking an extension of time to file their dispositive motions to 30 days after a settlement conference is completed. The parties believe that a settlement conference would likely lead to a result that would resolve the case in its entirety and it would be in the interest of judicial economy under Fed. R. Civ. P 1 to wait to file the dispositive motions until after the judicial settlement conference. Accordingly, the parties respectfully request that the extension be granted for good cause shown. See Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1260, (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that the “district court abused its discretion in denying party’s timely motion” to extend time because the party “demonstrated the ‘good cause’ required by Rule 6, and because there was no reason to believe that [the party] was acting in bad faith or was misrepresenting his reasons for asking for the extension”). Based on the foregoing, and for good cause, Defendants request the entry of an Order setting a settlement conference that excuses the attendance of the individually named Defendants. The parties also request an extension of time until 30 days after the completion of the settlement conference to submit dispositive motions. /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// DATED this 6th day of November, DATED this 6th day of November, 2024. 2024. AARON D. FORD, Attorney General CURRIDEN & ASSOCIATES /s/ Nathan M. Claus By: /s/ Alex He Alex He, Esq. NATHAN M. CLAUS Nevada Bar No. 15889 Nevada Bar No. 15054 Deputy Attorney General Curriden & Associates State of Nevada P.O. Box 24508 1 State of Nevada Way, Ste. 100 Las Oakland, CA 94623-1508 Tel: 702.822.9504 Vegas, Nevada 89119 Tel: (702) 486-7629 Attorneys for Plaintiff Attorneys for Defendants IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Joint Request for a Settlement Conference and Motion to Extend Dispositive Motions Deadline (ECF Nos. 223 and 224) is IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a separate Order will issue setting the settlement conference. The individually named Defendants will not be required to attend, however Defendants must be represented by parties with full settlement authority. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that dispositive motions will be due 30 days after the settlement conference if the case does not settle. Date: November 6, 2024