Matthews v. Gittere

CourtDistrict Court, D. Nevada
DecidedJune 15, 2021
Docket3:19-cv-00217
StatusUnknown

This text of Matthews v. Gittere (Matthews v. Gittere) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Nevada primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Matthews v. Gittere, (D. Nev. 2021).

Opinion

1 AARON D. FORD Attorney General 2 ROST C. OLSEN, Bar #14410 Deputy Attorney General 3 State of Nevada 100 N. Carson Street 4 Carson City, NV 89701-4717 Tel: (775) 684-1209 5 E-mail: rolsen@ag.nv.gov

6 Attorneys for Defendants Kira Butcher, Jacob Cruz, William Gittere, 7 William Reubart, and Brandon Stubbs 8

9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 10 11 IVAN LEE MATTHEWS, II, Case No. 3:19-cv-00217-MMD-WGC

12 Plaintiff, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR 13 vs. EXTENSION OF DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS DEADLINE 14 WILLIAM GITTERE, et al., (First Request)

15 Defendant. 16 17 18 Defendants Kira Butcher, Jacob Cruz, William Gittere, William Reubart, and 19 Brandon Stubbs, by and through counsel, Aaron D. Ford, Attorney General of the State 20 of Nevada, and Rost C. Olsen, Deputy Attorney General, move this Court for a brief 21 extension of the dispositive motions deadline in this matter, from June 14, 2021 to 22 June 28, 2021. 23 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 24 District courts have inherent power to control their dockets. Hamilton Copper & 25 Steel Corp. v. Primary Steel, Inc., 898 F.2d 1428, 1429 (9th Cir. 1990); Oliva v. Sullivan, 26 958 F.2d 272, 273 (9th Cir. 1992). Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1) governs enlargements of time 27 and provides as follows: When an act may or must be done within a specified time, the 1 court may, for good cause, extend the time: (A) with or without motion or notice if the court acts, or if a request is made, before 2 the original time or its extension expires; or (B) on motion made after the time has expired if the party failed to act because of 3 excusable neglect. 4 “The proper procedure, when additional time for any purpose is needed, is to 5 present to the Court a timely request for an extension before the time fixed has expired 6 (i.e., a request presented before the time then fixed for the purpose in question has 7 expired).” Canup v. Miss. Valley Barge Line Co., 31 F.R.D. 282, 283 (D.Pa. 1962). The 8 Canup Court explained that “the practicalities of life” (such as an attorney’s “conflicting 9 professional engagements” or personal commitments such as vacations, family activities, 10 illnesses, or death) often necessitate an enlargement of time to comply with a court 11 deadline. Id. 12 Here, undersigned counsel just completed another dispositive motion in a case 13 involving Plaintiff Matthews last week,1 and anticipated having enough time to finish a 14 dispositive motion in this matter by today as well. However, this estimation proved to be 15 too ambitious, as undersigned was then tasked to cover a state court hearing today for a 16 colleague due to illness, which required undersigned to prepare for that hearing rather 17 than draft the motion for summary judgment in this matter. Accordingly, “the 18 practicalities of life” in these circumstances lead Defendants to seek this short extension 19 of the dispositive motions deadline. See Canup, 31 F.R.D. at 283. 20 This short extension of the dispositive motions deadline will allow undersigned to 21 brief the issues and potentially provide the Court bases to adjudicate this matter via 22 motion, either partially or fully, which would avoid unnecessary trial and preserve 23 limited judicial resources. 24 / / / 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 1 For the foregoing reasons, Defendants move the Court to extend the dispositiv 2 || motions deadline in this matter from June 14, 2021 to June 28, 2021. Defendants submi 3 || this request in good faith and not to cause any undue delay or other improper purpose. 4 DATED this 14th day of June, 2021. AARON D. FORD 5 Attorney General

By: V ff 7 ROST C. OLSEN Deputy Attorney General 8 State of Nevada 9 Public Safety Division

10 Attorneys for Defendants 11 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 e213 wn (Ad Lyf ale a os 15 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 DATED: June 15, 2021 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 2 I certify that I am an employee of the Office of the Attorney General, State c 3 || Nevada, and that on this 14th day of June, 2021, I caused to be deposited for mailing : 4 || true and correct copy of the foregoing, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR EXTENSIO? 5 || OF DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS DEADLINE (First Request), to the following: 6 7 || Ivan Lee Matthews 8 Tos Angeles CA 90037 9 10 Cap—-We~ An employee of the 1 Office of the Attorney General 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Matthews v. Gittere, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matthews-v-gittere-nvd-2021.