Mary Jane Beauregard and John Hugh Smith v. Clayton Sampson and Elisha Sampson

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: November 20, 2025
• Docket: 2:20-cv-02123
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 HOFLAND & TOMSHECK Jason F. Carr, Esq. 2 Nevada State Bar No. 6587 228 South Fourth Street, 1st Floor 3 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 JasonC@Hoflandlaw.com 4 Telephone: (702) 895-6760 Facsimile: (702) 731-6910 5 Attorney for Defendants Clayton Sampson, Elisha Sampson 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 8 * * * 9 10 MARY JANE BEAUREGARD, and JOHN 11 HUGH SMITH, CASE NO.: 2:20-cv-02123-KJD-DJA 12 Plaintiffs, 13 vs. 14 CLAYTON SAMPSON, an individual, 15 ELISHA SAMPSON, an individual, et. al. 16 Defendants. 17 18 MOTION TO CONTINUE OPPOSITION TO SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST FOR ATTORNEY FEES (ECF No. 190) 19 (Second Request) 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 2 On October 14, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a Supplemental Motion for Attorney Fees. 3 (See ECF No. 190.) The Opposition to this Motion was due on October, 28, 2025.1 4 Defendants sought an extension of time of seventeen days until November 14, 2025. 5 Counsel for Sampson now hereby requests a second extension, until Dec. 5, 6 2025, to file the Opposition. Defendants respectfully submit there is good cause to 7 grant this request for an extension. A court has inherent power to control its own 8 docket to ensure that cases proceed in a timely and orderly matter. Cf. Clinton v. Jones, 9 520 U.S. 681, 705 (1997) (explaining that a court is vested with broad discretion to stay a 10 civil proceeding). Continuing pretrial and trial dates is within the discretion of the trial 11 judge. See King v. State of California, 784 F.2d 910, 912 (9th Cir. 1986); Rios-Barrios v. 12 I.N.S., 776 F.2d 859, 862-63 (9th Cir. 1985). Further, case schedules may be modified for 13 "good cause." Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). 14 "The central inquiry under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4) is whether the requesting party 15 was diligent." DRK Photo v. McGraw-Hill Glob. Educ. Holdings, LLC, 870 F.3d 978, 989 16 (9th Cir. 2017). "Although the existence or degree of prejudice to the party opposing the 17 modification might supply additional reasons to deny a motion, the focus of the inquiry 18 is upon the moving party's reasons for seeking modification." Johnson v. Mammoth 19 Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). "If that party was not diligent, the 20 inquiry should end." Id. 21 In this matter, the Defendants seek an extension of time until December 5, 2025 to 22 file an Opposition. The bases for this request are as follows: 23 24 1 Defendants filed a Notice of Appeal on October 21, 2025. The Federal Rules of 25 Appellate Procedure provide that this Court retains power to decide the Plaintiffs’, supplemental request for attorney fees and that Defendants’ Notice of Appeal will 26 become operative after this Court disposes of the Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Motion. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(1). The procedure chosen by the Defendants has the 27 benefit of obviating the need to ask this Court to extend notice of appeal deadlines under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58(e). Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(3). 1 1). That counsel for the Defendants has longstanding plans to leave the jurisdiction 2 from October 22-27, 2025. Counsel could not have anticipated that an Opposition 3 would be due on October 28, 2025, at that time those plans were made. 4 2). That on October 20, 2025, counsel wrote a Reply to the State’s Return to 5 Petitioner’s Writ of Habeas Corpus, in State v. Min Steve Kim, C-25-392349-1. 6 3). That counsel filed expedited pleadings related to staying a surrender date and 7 release pending appeal throughout the week ending on October 17, 2025, in United 8 States v. Dallmann, et. al., 2:22-cr-00030-RFB. Counsel must file a Federal Rule of 9 Appellate Procedure 9(b) Motion in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth 10 Circuit as expeditiously as possible given the defendant counsel represents in that 11 matter has a chronic infectious disease. 12 4). On November 7, 2025, counsel must file a Supplement to a pro se Motion for a 13 Reduced Sentence in United States v. Abdul Howard, 2:13-cr-00186-GMN-VCF. 14 5). Counsel has oral argument in a Ninth Circuit matter entitled United States v. 15 McDaniel, CA No. 24-1824. This matter involves a complicated trial and interesting, yet 16 novel, issues such as a death bed confession letter that appeared after the defendant’s 17 conviction. 18 Counsel for the Plaintiffs has expressed an interest in ensuring that the appellate 19 process goes forward expeditiously as the case has been pending for some time. The 20 appeal process is moving forward including a mediation conference that occurred this 21 week. Counsel for the defendants is sensitive to the Plaintiffs’ time considerations and 22 will ensure this filing occurs after the McDaniel oral argument. The requested delay, 23 however, should not delay, or otherwise impact, the appellate process. 24 25 26 27 1 For these reasons, the Defendants respectfully request that their objection to the 2 Plaintiff’s request for further attorney fees be moved to Friday, December 5, 2025. 3 Counsel also apologies for filing this request for an extension late as counsel had 4 inadvertently calendared the due date for November 27, 2025, mixing up the matter 5 with another case that was continued. 6 DATED this 19th Day of November, 2025. 7 Respectfullysubmitted, 8 /s/ Jason F. Carr 9 HOFLAND & TOMSHECK JASON F. CARR 10 228 S. 4th Street 11 FirstFloor Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 12 (702) 895-6760 13 JasonC@Holflandlaw.com 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 ORDER 2 For good cause showing, IT Is HEREBY ORDERED, that the Defendants in 3| | Beauregard v. Sampson shall file their Opposition to the Plaintiffs Supplemental Motion for Attorney Fees (ECF No. 190) no later than December 5, 2025. 5 La 6 Dated 11/20/2025 \ \

7 UNITED STATES =: JUDGE 8 9 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 2 I hereby certify that on November 19, 2025, I electronically filed the foregoing with 3 the Clerk of the Court for the United States District Court, District of Nevada by using 4 the CM/ECF system. 5 Participants in the case who are registered CM/ECF users will be served by the 6 CM/ECF system and include C. Brenton Kugler, Esq., Scheef & Stone LLP. 7

8 /s/ Jason F. Carr 9 Hofland & Tomsheck Jason F. Carr, Esq. 10

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27