Michael Sternberg v. Shelley Warneck, et al.

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: October 23, 2025
• Docket: 2:23-cv-01466
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 * * *

4 MICHAEL STERNBERG, Case No. 2:23-cv-01466-APG-EJY

5 Plaintiff, ORDER 6 v.

7 SHELLEY WARNECK, et al.,

8 Defendants.

9 10 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time (ECF No. 312), which 11 Defendant Warneck opposes (ECF No. 314). The Court considered Plaintiff’s Motion, Warneck’s 12 Opposition, and Plaintiff’s Reply (ECF No. 316). 13 Plaintiff seeks an extension of time to file his second amended complaint until after the Court 14 rules on his Motion for Reconsideration. Plaintiff’s Motion was filed after the Ninth Circuit Court 15 of Appeals affirmed the district court’s order finding the court “did not abuse its discretion in denying 16 Sternberg’s motions for a preliminary injunction because Sternberg failed to establish the 17 requirements for such relief.” ECF No. 298 at 2. Plaintiff argues that despite the Ninth Circuit 18 decision, he seeks reconsideration of the District Court’s application of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine 19 that resulted in partial dismissal of his claims. ECF No. 316 at 1. 20 A motion for reconsideration must demonstrate (1) an intervening change in controlling law, 21 (2) the discovery of new evidence not previously available, or (3) the need to correct clear or manifest 22 error in law or fact, to prevent manifest injustice. School Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d. 1255, 23 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Upon a showing of one of these three grounds for reconsideration, a moving 24 party must argue “facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior 25 decision.” Donaldson v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 947 F.Supp. 429, 430 (D. Haw. 1996). 26 The Court finds the high bar required to warrant reconsideration, when taken together with 27 the history of this case, militates against the extension of time requested by Plaintiff. It has taken 1 upon the filing of a second amended complaint, ultimately proceed. “[I]t is the trial court’s 2 responsibility to exercise its discretion in granting or denying extensions of time as it manages the 3 progress of litigation.” Manley v. Zimmer, Case No. 3:11-cv-0636- RCJ-WGC, 2014 WL 4471662, 4 at *6 (D. Nev. Sept. 10, 2014). Exercising that discretion here, the Court finds delaying the filing 5 of a second amended complaint based on the pending Motion for Reconsideration is contrary to the 6 overall stated goals of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as explained in Rule 1: “These rules 7 govern the procedure in all civil actions and proceedings in the United States district courts …. They 8 should be construed, administered, and employed by the court and the parties to secure the just, 9 speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.” 10 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY OREDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time 11 (ECF No. 312) is DENIED. 12 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s second amended complaint must be filed no 13 later than November 19, 2025. 14 Dated this 22nd day of October, 2025. 15

16 ELAYNA J. YOUCHAH 17 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27