Hoekstra v. Pershing County Sheriffs Office

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: December 31, 2024
• Docket: 3:24-cv-00392
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 LAWRENCE & LAWRENCE LAW, PLLC Nathan E. Lawrence, NBN 15060 2 || Joseph P. Lawrence, NBN 16726 3 9480 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. 213 Las Vegas, Nevada 89123 4 || Telephone: 702-534-6556 5 || Facsimile: 702-602-5168 nathan@law2esq.com 6 joseph@law2esq.com 7 || Attorneys for Plaintiff Hannah Hale Hoekstra UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ? DISTRICT OF NEVADA

11 ||) HANNAH HALE HOEKSTRA, an individual, | Case No.: 3:24-cv-00392-MMD-CSD

Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION 13 AND ORDER TO EXTEND TIME FOR 5 4 PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO PERSHING COUNTY (Nevada) SHERIFF’S | FEDERAL DEFENDANT’S MOTION ‘= 15 OFICE; DONNA ROBINSON, an individual; | TO DISMISS OR, IN THE 8 DEPUTY BOYER, an individual; and P. ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR 3 |° || ZOHOVETZ, an individual; collectivel g , an individual; collectively, PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT = il [ECF Nos. 23, 24] < Defendants. 18 (First Request) 19 20 Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1) and Local Rules IA 6-1, IA 6-2, and 26-3, Plaintiff 21 || HANNAH HALE HOEKSTRA (“Plaintiff” or “Ms. Hoekstra”), by and through her attorneys of 22 ||/the law firm of LAWRENCE & LAWRENCE LAW, PLLC, and Defendant RANGER PAUL 23 || ZOHOVETZ (‘Federal Defendant” or “Zohovetz””), by and through JASON FRIERSON, United 24 || States Attorney, hereby submit this Stipulation and Order to Extend Time for Plaintiff’s Response 25 ||to Federal Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss or, in the alternative, Motion for Partial Summary 26 || Judgment [ECF Nos. 23, 24]. 27 This is the first stipulation to extend the response deadline, and this stipulation 1s presented to the Court in advance of the current respective deadlines of December 30, 2024, and January 6, R

C 1 Page 1 of 4

1 2025. For the foregoing reasons and as is more fully explicated below, the Parties stipulate to 2 respectfully request that this Court extend the response deadline in this matter and with 3 || respect to the alternate motions until January 20, 2025. 4 RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY 6 1. On August 31, 2024, Plaintiff her Complaint [ECF No. 1] herein. 7 2. On October 29, 2024, and November 13, 2024, the parties stipulated to extend the 8 || time for the Federal Defendant’s response until December 19, 2024. See ECF Nos. 11, 13, 14, and 2 9 15. 10 3. On December 16, 2024, Defendant Zohovetz filed his Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 11 || 23] or, in the alternative, Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [ECF No. 24]. 12 2 13 LEGAL STANDARD = 14 Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule (“FRCP”) 6(b)(1) governs extensions of time and allows, in relevant = 15 || part, that “[w]hen an act may or must be done within a specified time, the court may, for good 2 16 || cause, extend the time: (A) with or without motion or notice if the court acts, or if a request is 17 made, before the original time or its extension expires.” If additional time for any purpose is 18 needed, the proper procedure is to present a request for extension of time before the time fixed 19 |;has expired. Canup v. Mississippi Val. Barge Line Co., 31 F.R.D. 282 (W.D. Pa. 1962). An 20 || extension of time may always be sought and is usually granted on a showing of good cause if 21 |} timely made under subdivision (b)(1) of [FRCP 6]. Creedon v. Taubman, 8 F.R.D. 268 (N.D. 22 |}Ohio 1947). Also, a district court possesses the inherent power to control its own docket. 23 || Hamilton Copper & Steel Corp. v. Primary Steel, Inc., 898 F.2d 1428, 1429 (9th Cir. 1990); 24 || Olivia v. Sullivan, 958 F.2d 272, 273 (9th Cir. 1992). 25 LR IA 6-1 additionally requires that a motion to extend time must state the reasons for the 26 || extension requested. LR 26-3 requires that a motion to extend any date set by the discovery plan, 27 scheduling order, or other order must, as well as satisfying the requirements of LR IA 6-1, demonstrate good cause for the extension.

| Page 2 of 4

1 ||. ARGUMENT 2 As noted above, on December 16, 2024, Defendant Zohovetz filed his Motion to Dismiss 3 || [ECF No. 23] or, in the alternative, Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [ECF No. 24], with 4 ||respective deadlines for response, in the normal course, on December 30, 2024, and January 6, 5 2025. Accordingly, under FRCP 6.1(b)(1), the instant Stipulation for extension of time is timely 6 || filed with respect to the upcoming response deadlines. 7 Plaintiff's counsel was out of the country when Federal Defendant’s motions were filed 8 and returned on December 21, 2024, immediately prior to the Christmas holiday which further 9 ||prevented the expedient development of responses to Federal Defendant’s comprehensive 10 |}motions. The Parties stipulate that the noted circumstances constitute good cause for a brief & 11 || extension of time for Plaintiff's responses. Accordingly, the Parties are amenable to and request = 12 approval by the Court of an extension for Plaintiff's Response to both motions until January 20, o 43 2025.

Oo w 14

= 15 |f///

16 2 = iT i/// < 18 19 |}/// 20 21 |f/// 22 23 |V/// 24 25 |}/// 26 27 |V/// 28

¢ —_ Page 3 of 4

1 IT IS SO STIPULATED. 2 || DATED this 30® day of December 2024. DATED this 30" day of December 2024. 3 LAWRENCE & LAWRENCE LAW, PLLC JASON FRIERSON, U.S. Attorney 4 District of Nevada, Nevada Bar No. 7709 5 /s/ R. Thomas Colonna 6 || Nathan ErLawyence, NBN 15060 R. THOMAS COLONNA 7 || Joseph P. Lawrence, NBN 16726 Assistant United States Attorney 9480 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. 213 501 Las Vegas Blvd. So., Suite 1100 Las Vegas, Nevada 89123 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 Telephone: 702-534-6556 Telephone: 702-388-6336 3 10 Facsimile: 702-602-5168 Email: richard.colonna@usdoj.gov nathan@law2esq.com Attorneys for the United States = 11 |] joseph@law2esq.com 12 || Attorneys for Plaintiff o

OQ ow

15 2 16 IT IS SO ORDERED.

= 17 DATED: December 31, 2024 19 20 21 22 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 Page 4 of 4