James Edward Scott, III v. Melissa Mitchell, et al.

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: October 10, 2025
• Docket: 3:23-cv-00231
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 * * *

4 JAMES EDWARD SCOTT, III, Case No. 3:23-CV-00231-ART-CLB

5 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE LATE MOTION 6 v. FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

7 MELISSA MITCHELL, et al., [ECF Nos. 56]

8 Defendants.

9 10 This case involves a civil rights action filed by Plaintiff James Edward Scott III 11 (“Scott”), (ECF No. 1). On October 2, 2025, Scott filed a motion for partial summary 12 judgment. (ECF No. 52.) The Court ordered that motion stricken from the docket because 13 it was filed over eight months after the deadline to file dispositive motions. (ECF No. 54.) 14 On October 9, 2025, Scott filed a motion for leave to file a late motion for partial summary 15 judgment. (ECF No. 56.) In the motion, Scott acknowledges he is asking for this extension 16 “approximately eight months after the deadline” to file dispositive motions in this case. (Id. 17 at 2.) However, Scott argues he failed to comply with the deadline due to excusable 18 neglect and that no prejudice will result to Defendants by allowing him to file the late 19 motion for partial summary judgment. (Id. at 2-4.) 20 Local Rule 26-3 states if a request to extend a deadline occurs “after the expiration 21 of the subject deadline,” the request will not be granted “unless the movant also 22 demonstrates that the failure to act was the result of excusable neglect.” LR 26-3. Rule 23 60(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states that “whether neglect is excusable 24 depends on at least four factors: (1) the danger of prejudice to the opposing party; (2) the 25 length of the delay and its potential impact on the proceedings; (3) the reason for the 26 delay; and (4) whether the movant acted in good faith.” See Branch Banking & Trust Co. 27 v. D.M.S.I., LLC, 871 F.3d 751, 765 (9th Cir. 2017) (delaying a request to amend a 1 agreement was not excusable neglect because the defendant had always known of the 2 agreement). A court should “take into account all the relevant circumstances” when 3 considering these factors. Cap. One, Nat’l Ass’n v. SFR Inv. Pool 1, LLC, No. 2:17-cv- 4 00604-RFB-NJK, 2020 WL 6271199 at *4 (D. Nev. Oct. 26, 2020) (citing Bank of Am., 5 N.A. v. Ann Losee Homeowners Ass’n, No. 2:16-cv-00407-JCM-CWH, 2017 WL 4467541 6 at *7 (D. Nev. Oct. 5, 2017)). 7 Scott contends that Defendants will not be prejudiced if the Court allows him to file 8 a late motion for partial summary judgment because “[t]he Court has not yet issued a 9 ruling on the merits. . . .” (ECF No. 56 at 3.) This is incorrect. The Court ruled on the merits 10 of Defendants’ motion for summary judgment when it adopted the undersigned’s Report 11 and Recommendation recommending denial of the motion. (ECF No. 51.) In fact, based 12 on that order, issued on September 26, 2025, the joint pretrial order in this case is due on 13 Monday, October 27, 2025. (See ECF No. 26 at 6 (initial scheduling order establishing 14 that the joint pretrial order is either due on the deadline established by the discovery plan 15 “or 30 days following the entry of the court’s ruling on a dispositive motion.”).) Here, Scott 16 waited over eight months after the deadline to file dispositive motions passed to move to 17 file partial motion for summary judgment, which does not indicate Scott acted in good 18 faith. Granting him leave to file a late partial motion for summary judgment would 19 necessarily involve pushing the deadline to file a joint pretrial order and the setting of the 20 trial itself, potentially delaying this case for months. Granting the motion would also mean 21 that Defendants would have to shift from preparing for trial in this case back to ligating 22 substantive motions. Further, the fact that Scott wishes to file a partial motion for summary 23 judgment means that trial will still be necessary as his motion for summary judgment 24 would not dispose of all claims. Thus, the Court finds that all of the relevant circumstances 25 do not demonstrate excusable neglect. Cap. One, 2020 WL 6271199 at *4 (citations 26 omitted). 27 /// 1 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Scott’s motion for leave to file a late partial 2| motion for summary judgment, (ECF No. 56), is DENIED. A joint pretrial order is due on 3| Monday, October 27, 2025. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. . 5 DATED: October 10, 2025. 6 UNITED STA MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28