Richards v. Cox

D. Nevada

Richards v. Cox

DecidedApril 26, 2023

Docket2:16-cv-01794

StatusUnknown

This text of Richards v. Cox (Richards v. Cox) 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

Richards v. Cox, (D. Nev. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

Attorney General 2 Marni Watkins (Bar No. 9674) Chief Litigation Counsel 3 D. Randall Gilmer (Bar No. 14001) Chief Deputy Attorney General 4 Office of the Attorney General 555 E. Washington Ave, Suite 3900 5 Las Vegas, NV 89101 (702) 486-8727 (phone) 6 (702) 486-3773 (fax) mkwatkins@ag.nv.gov 7 dgilmer@ag.nv.gov 8 Attorneys for Defendants Greg Cox, Renee Baker, and Eric Boardman 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 12 STACEY M. RICHARDS, Case No. 2:16-cv-01794-JCM-PAL 13 Plaintiff, 14 vs. JOINT STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL 15 GREG COX, et al., (First Request) 16 Defendants. 17 Defendants GREG COX, RENEE BAKER and ERIC BOARDMAN (“Defendants”), 18 by and through counsel, AARON D. FORD, Attorney General of the State of Nevada, and 19 Marni Watkins Bureau Chief, Complex Litigation and Plaintiff STACEY M. RICHARDS 20 (“Plaintiff”), by and through counsel, RICHARD SCHONFELD and JOHN BURTON 21 (jointly “The Parties”), hereby stipulate (first request) and agree to continue the trial in 22 this case and the associated dates established by the Court. 23 District courts have inherent power to control their dockets. Hamilton Copper & 24 Steel Corp. v. Primary Steel, Inc., 898 F.2d 1428, 1429 (9th Cir. 1990); Oliva v. Sullivan, 25 958 F.2d 272, 273 (9th Cir. 1992). A motion for a continuance of trial should be granted for 26 good cause. FED. R. CIV. P. 16(b)(4). “The determination of whether to grant a motion for 27 trial continuance rests in the sound discretion of the trial court.” U.S. v. Makley, 468 F.2d 28 916, 917 (9th Cir. 1972). 2 trial and associated dates in this case. The trial in this matter was originally set on the 3 April 24, 2023, trial stack. The Parties were prepared and ready to proceed, however at 4 the April 4, 2023, Master Trial Scheduling Conference, the trial was reset for the May 8, 5 2023, trial stack. There was a second Master Trial Scheduling Conference held on April 6 18, 2023, whereby The Parties informed the Court that they were ready to proceed to trial. 7 The Court informed The Parties “that Judge Mahan has another criminal trial that has a 8 pending motion to continue trial.” Minute of Proceedings dated April 18, 2023, ECF 160. 9 The Court further informed The Parties that “[a] decision in that matter will be issued by 10 the end of business on Friday, 4/21/2023 and the parties are instructed to follow up with 11 the Court as to trial status after this date.” Id. 12 On the morning of April 24, 2023, the Court issued a Minute Order in Chambers 13 resetting the jury trial for May 22, 2023. ECF 161 and 162. The Parties have a conflict 14 with the May 22, 2023 trial date. This trial will take approximately seven (7) days to 15 complete. Defense counsel, Marni Watkins, has had a family trip to the Cayman Islands 16 planned for months in celebration of her husband’s 44th birthday. Defense counsel, Randy 17 Gilmer has his son’s high school graduation to attend. Defendant James Cox will be 18 unavailable for trial because he will be travelling for his grandson’s graduation and 19 Plaintiff’s treating medical provider will not be available until after June 11, 2023. Because 20 of these scheduling conflicts, Plaintiff and defense counsel conferred and agreed to continue 21 this trial until after June 11, 2023, when Plaintiff’s treating physician can be available. 22 This request is not made for the purpose of undue delay and is brought in good faith. 23 The Court and parties will not be prejudiced by this request. The additional time will also 24 allow the parties’ counsel to meet and confer regarding pre-trial matters, to coordinate 25 exhibits, and to facilitate a more effective trial. Furthermore, there should be no known 26 inconvenience to the Court or parties, or any witness because of this request for a 27 continuance. 28 1 Furthermore, a continuance would grant the parties additional time to re-open 2 ||settlement negotiations and explore the possibilities for a settlement agreement prior to 3 ||trial. The parties will in good faith use additional time to discuss possible ways to resolve 4 ||this matter before trial. 5 Accordingly, the parties assert that the requisite good cause is present to justify 6 || continuance pursuant to Local Rule IA6-1. Therefore, the parties respectfully request that 7 ||this Court continue the trial in this case and the associated dates. The parties offer the 8 || following suggested trial dates: 9 1. The week beginning June 26, 2023 10 2. The August, 2023 stack 11 || DATED this 25th day of April, 2023. DATED this 25th day of April, 2023. 12 || CHESNOFF & SCHONFELD AARON D. FORD 13 Attorney General 14 || By:__approved as to form content By: /s/ Marni Watkins RICHARD SCHONFELD MARNI WATKINS (Bar No. 9674) 15 Nevada Bar No. 6815 Chief Litigation Counsel 520 South Fourth Street, 2.4 Floor D. RANDALL GILMER (Bar No. 14001) 16 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 Chief Deputy Attorney General Attorneys for Plaintiff Attorneys for Defendants DATED this 25 day of April, 2023 18 || THE LAW OFFICES OF JOHN BURTON 19 99) || By:sfdohn Burton —___ JOHN BURTON, Pro Hac Vice a1 || Fauternia Bar No. 86029 ae IT IS ORDERED that the trial currently Pasadena, California 91103 set for May 22, 2023, is reset to June 26, 22 jb@johnburtonlaw.com 2023 at 9:00 a.m. The calendar call 23 Attorneys for Plaintiff currently set for May 17, 2023, is reset to June 22, 2023 at 1:30 p.m. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 DATED April 26, 2023. 26 : . (tte) ©. Ato law 27 UNITEL) STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28

From: John Burton Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2023 10:42 AM To: Marni K. Watkins Cc: Richard Schonfeld Subject: Joint Stipulation to Continue the Trial Date ver 2 with JB edits WARNING ‐ This email originated from outside the State of Nevada. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Hi Marni, Thank you for clearing the 26th. Plaintiff was injured more than eight years ago and is anxious to get his claim resolved one way or the other. I made a few minor non-substantive edits in track changes. Otherwise fine with me to file. I don’t need to see another draft. John John Burton Co-Counsel for Plaintiff THE LAW OFFICES OF JOHN BURTON 128 North Fair Oaks Avenue Pasadena, California 91103 jb@johnburtonlaw.com Tel: (626) 449-8300 Fax: (626) 440-5968

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

Attorney General 2 Marni Watkins (Bar No. 9674) Chief Litigation Counsel 3 D. Randall Gilmer (Bar No. 14001) Chief Deputy Attorney General 4 Office of the Attorney General 555 E. Washington Ave, Suite 3900 5 Las Vegas, NV 89101 (702) 486-8727 (phone) 6 (702) 486-3773 (fax) mkwatkins@ag.nv.gov 7 dgilmer@ag.nv.gov 8 Attorneys for Defendants Greg Cox, Renee Baker, and Eric Boardman 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 12 STACEY M. RICHARDS, Case No. 2:16-cv-01794-JCM-PAL 13 Plaintiff, 14 vs. JOINT STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL 15 GREG COX, et al., (First Request) 16 Defendants. 17 Defendants GREG COX, RENEE BAKER and ERIC BOARDMAN (“Defendants”), 18 by and through counsel, AARON D. FORD, Attorney General of the State of Nevada, and 19 Marni Watkins Bureau Chief, Complex Litigation and Plaintiff STACEY M. RICHARDS 20 (“Plaintiff”), by and through counsel, RICHARD SCHONFELD and JOHN BURTON 21 (jointly “The Parties”), hereby stipulate (first request) and agree to continue the trial in 22 this case and the associated dates established by the Court. 23 District courts have inherent power to control their dockets. Hamilton Copper & 24 Steel Corp. v. Primary Steel, Inc., 898 F.2d 1428, 1429 (9th Cir. 1990); Oliva v. Sullivan, 25 958 F.2d 272, 273 (9th Cir. 1992). A motion for a continuance of trial should be granted for 26 good cause. FED. R. CIV. P. 16(b)(4). “The determination of whether to grant a motion for 27 trial continuance rests in the sound discretion of the trial court.” U.S. v. Makley, 468 F.2d 28 916, 917 (9th Cir. 1972). 2 trial and associated dates in this case. The trial in this matter was originally set on the 3 April 24, 2023, trial stack. The Parties were prepared and ready to proceed, however at 4 the April 4, 2023, Master Trial Scheduling Conference, the trial was reset for the May 8, 5 2023, trial stack. There was a second Master Trial Scheduling Conference held on April 6 18, 2023, whereby The Parties informed the Court that they were ready to proceed to trial. 7 The Court informed The Parties “that Judge Mahan has another criminal trial that has a 8 pending motion to continue trial.” Minute of Proceedings dated April 18, 2023, ECF 160. 9 The Court further informed The Parties that “[a] decision in that matter will be issued by 10 the end of business on Friday, 4/21/2023 and the parties are instructed to follow up with 11 the Court as to trial status after this date.” Id. 12 On the morning of April 24, 2023, the Court issued a Minute Order in Chambers 13 resetting the jury trial for May 22, 2023. ECF 161 and 162. The Parties have a conflict 14 with the May 22, 2023 trial date. This trial will take approximately seven (7) days to 15 complete. Defense counsel, Marni Watkins, has had a family trip to the Cayman Islands 16 planned for months in celebration of her husband’s 44th birthday. Defense counsel, Randy 17 Gilmer has his son’s high school graduation to attend. Defendant James Cox will be 18 unavailable for trial because he will be travelling for his grandson’s graduation and 19 Plaintiff’s treating medical provider will not be available until after June 11, 2023. Because 20 of these scheduling conflicts, Plaintiff and defense counsel conferred and agreed to continue 21 this trial until after June 11, 2023, when Plaintiff’s treating physician can be available. 22 This request is not made for the purpose of undue delay and is brought in good faith. 23 The Court and parties will not be prejudiced by this request. The additional time will also 24 allow the parties’ counsel to meet and confer regarding pre-trial matters, to coordinate 25 exhibits, and to facilitate a more effective trial. Furthermore, there should be no known 26 inconvenience to the Court or parties, or any witness because of this request for a 27 continuance. 28 1 Furthermore, a continuance would grant the parties additional time to re-open 2 ||settlement negotiations and explore the possibilities for a settlement agreement prior to 3 ||trial. The parties will in good faith use additional time to discuss possible ways to resolve 4 ||this matter before trial. 5 Accordingly, the parties assert that the requisite good cause is present to justify 6 || continuance pursuant to Local Rule IA6-1. Therefore, the parties respectfully request that 7 ||this Court continue the trial in this case and the associated dates. The parties offer the 8 || following suggested trial dates: 9 1. The week beginning June 26, 2023 10 2. The August, 2023 stack 11 || DATED this 25th day of April, 2023. DATED this 25th day of April, 2023. 12 || CHESNOFF & SCHONFELD AARON D. FORD 13 Attorney General 14 || By:__approved as to form content By: /s/ Marni Watkins RICHARD SCHONFELD MARNI WATKINS (Bar No. 9674) 15 Nevada Bar No. 6815 Chief Litigation Counsel 520 South Fourth Street, 2.4 Floor D. RANDALL GILMER (Bar No. 14001) 16 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 Chief Deputy Attorney General Attorneys for Plaintiff Attorneys for Defendants DATED this 25 day of April, 2023 18 || THE LAW OFFICES OF JOHN BURTON 19 99) || By:sfdohn Burton —___ JOHN BURTON, Pro Hac Vice a1 || Fauternia Bar No. 86029 ae IT IS ORDERED that the trial currently Pasadena, California 91103 set for May 22, 2023, is reset to June 26, 22 jb@johnburtonlaw.com 2023 at 9:00 a.m. The calendar call 23 Attorneys for Plaintiff currently set for May 17, 2023, is reset to June 22, 2023 at 1:30 p.m. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 DATED April 26, 2023. 26 : . (tte) ©. Ato law 27 UNITEL) STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28

From: John Burton Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2023 10:42 AM To: Marni K. Watkins Cc: Richard Schonfeld Subject: Joint Stipulation to Continue the Trial Date ver 2 with JB edits WARNING ‐ This email originated from outside the State of Nevada. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Hi Marni, Thank you for clearing the 26th. Plaintiff was injured more than eight years ago and is anxious to get his claim resolved one way or the other. I made a few minor non-substantive edits in track changes. Otherwise fine with me to file. I don’t need to see another draft. John John Burton Co-Counsel for Plaintiff THE LAW OFFICES OF JOHN BURTON 128 North Fair Oaks Avenue Pasadena, California 91103 jb@johnburtonlaw.com Tel: (626) 449-8300 Fax: (626) 440-5968

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Richards v. Cox, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richards-v-cox-nvd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack