Jenkins v. Simas

Opinion

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 TRAVIS N. BARRICK, PC Travis N. Barrick, NBN 9257 730 Las Vegas Blvd S., Ste. 104 2 1 || Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 Telephone: 702-892-3500 = |! Facsimile: 702-386-1946 & 42 || tbarrick@vegascase.com g Attorneys for Plaintiff 13

eg UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 16 £ DAYSEAN JENKINS Case No.: 3:23-cv-00049-ART-CLB — 217 Se Plaintiff, 9 y ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME FOR PLAINTIFF’S 20 DANIEL SIMAS, an individual; JOSEPH RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT DR. 31 BENSON, an individual; MIKE DAVIS, an JOHN HALKI’S MOTION TO individual; JOHN HALKI, an individual; and | DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S SECOND 22 DEBBIE KEENNON, an individual; AMENDED COMPLAINT collectively, 23 24 Defendants. [ECE No. 29]

25 (First Request) 26 Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1) and Local Rules JA 6-1, IA 6-2, and 26-3, Plaintiff 27 } DAYSEAN JENKINS (“Plaintiff or “Mr. Jenkins”), by and through his attorneys of the law 28 firms of LAWRENCE & LAWRENCE LAW, PLLC and TRAVIS N. BARRICK, PC and Defendant Dr.

C 1 Page | of 4

1 } JOHN HALKI (“Dr. Halki”), by and through his attorneys of the law firm of LEWIS BRISBOIS 2 BISGAARD & SMITH LLP, hereby submit this Stipulation and Order to Extend Time for Plaintiff's 3 Response to Defendant Dr. John Halki’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended 4 Complaint. 5 This is the first stipulation to extend the response deadline, and this stipulation is presented 6 to the Court in advance of the current deadline of December 20, 2024. For the foregoing reasons 7 as is more fully explicated below, the Parties stipulate to and respectfully request that this 8 Court extend the response deadline in this matter until January 3, 2025. 9 10 } 1. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY 11 1. On November 23, 2024, pursuant to the Court’s August 12, 2024, Order extending = 12 || the deadline to amend pleadings and add parties, Plaintiff filed his Second Amended Complaint, 13 }adding new causes of action for deliberate indifference arising from violations of Article 1, = 14 || Section 6 of the Nevada Constitution. = 15 2. On December 6, 2024, Defendant Dr. Halki filed his Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's 2 16 ||Second Amended Complaint (the “Motion to Dismiss”), specifically with respect to the Nevada = 17 || Constitutional claims. < 18 20 Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule (“FRCP”) 6(b)(1) governs extensions of time and allows, in relevant 21 part, that “[w]hen an act may or must be done within a specified time, the court may, for good 22 cause, extend the time: (A) with or without motion or notice if the court acts, or if a request is 23 made, before the original time or its extension expires.” If additional time for any purpose is 24 needed, the proper procedure is to present a request for extension of time before the time fixed 25 has expired. Canup v. Mississippi Val. Barge Line Co., 31 F.R.D. 282 (W.D. Pa. 1962). An 26 extension of time may always be sought and is usually granted on a showing of good cause if 27 timely made under subdivision (b)(1) of [FRCP 6]. Creedon v. Taubman, 8 F.R.D. 268 (N.D. 28 Ohio 1947). Also, a district court possesses the inherent power to control its own docket. AW

Page 2 of 4

1 Hamilton Copper & Steel Corp. v. Primary Steel, Inc., 898 F.2d 1428, 1429 (9th Cir. 1990); 2 Olivia v. Sullivan, 958 F.2d 272, 273 (9th Cir. 1992). 3 LR IA 6-1 additionally requires that a motion to extend time must state the reasons for the 4 extension requested. LR 26-3 requires that a motion to extend any date set by the discovery plan, 5 scheduling order, or other order must, as well as satisfying the requirements of LR IA 6-1, 6 demonstrate good cause for the extension. 7 8 }. ARGUMENT 9 As noted above, Dr. Halki’s Motion to Dismiss was filed on December 6, 2024, and 10 Plaintiff's Response thereto is required, in the normal course of things, by Friday, December 20, 11 2024. Accordingly, under FRCP 6.1(b)(1), the instant Stipulation for extension of time is timely = 12 || filed with respect to the upcoming response deadline. 13 Unfortunately, Plaintiff's lead counsel, Mr. Lawrence, has a previously and long- = 14 || scheduled trip out of country, from December 10, 2024, to December 20, 2024, which will render = 15 timely response to the Motion to Dismiss impracticable, if not impossible. The Parties stipulate 2 16 || that this previously scheduled international trip constitutes good cause for a brief extension of = 17 || time for Plaintiff's response. Given the Christmas holiday in the week following the present < 18 || response deadline, the Parties are amenable to and request approval by the Court of an extension 19 for Plaintiff's Response to Dr. Halki’s Motion to Dismiss of two weeks, until January 3, 2025. 20 21 f/// 22 23 V/// 24 25 }/// 26 27 V/// 28

= | Page 3 of 4

2 DATED this 8" day of December 2024. DATED this 8 day of September 2024. 3 LAWRENCE & LAW E LAW, PLLC LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP 4 5 /s/ Frank A. Toddre, I] _ © || Nathan E-bawr ce, NBN 15060 Frank A. Toddre, II, NBN 11474 7 Joseph P. Lawrence, NBN 16726 Frank.Toddre@lewisbrisbois.com 9480 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. 213 6385 S. Rainbow Boulevard, Suite 600 8 Las Vegas, Nevada 89123 Las Vegas, Nevada 89118 Telephone: 702-534-6556 Telephone: 702.893.3383 10 Facsimile: 702-602-5168 Facsimile: 702.893.3789 nathan@law2esq.com Attorney for Defendant Dr. John Halki . = 11 |] joseph@law2esq.com 12 Attorneys for Plaintiff oO 2 3 3 OQ ow 14

op

=~ 17 Se DATED: __ December 9, 2024 19 * 20 21 UNITED STATES GISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

1 Page 4 of 4