Rogers v. LVMPD (Police Department)

Opinion

1 MARGARET A. MCLETCHIE, Nevada Bar No. 10931 LEO S. WOLPERT, Nevada Bar No. 12658 2 | |MCLETCHIE LAW 602 South Tenth Street 3 | |Las Vegas, NV 89101 4 Telephone: (702) 728-5300 Fax: (702) 425-8220 5 | |Email: efile@nvlitigation.com ‘ Counsel for Plaintiffs Michael Rogers and Nikita Wright 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 9 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 10 oye MICHAEL ROGERS, an individual; Case No.: 2:22-cv-00867-CDS-BNW 11 | | NIKITA WRIGHT, an individual, Plaintiffs STIPULATION AND ORDER TO _ EXTEND AMENDMENT vs. DEADLINE LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE (SECOND REQUEST) 2 32 15 | | DEPARTMENT; JOSEPH LOMBARDO, in his official capacity; ALFREDO [ECF No. 74] = 16] |QUINTERO, individually; PRAVEEN RAJ, individually; PARKER SMITH, 17 | | individually; TYLER GEORGI, 18 individually; JUSTIN JONSSON, individually; JAMES KILBER, individually 19 | |DOE OFFICERS V - VI, individually, 20 Defendants 21 22 Plaintiffs Michael Rogers and Nikita Wright (“Plaintiffs”), by and through their 23 | |counsel of record, Margaret A. McLetchie, Esq. and Leo S. Wolpert, Esq., of McLetchie 24 | |Law, and Defendants, the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (the “Department” or 25 | |“LVYMPD”), Sgt. Alfredo Quintero (“Quintero”), and Officer Praveen Raj (“Raj”), 26 | |collectively (“LVMPD Defendants”), by and through their counsel of record, Craig R. 27 | | Anderson, Esq. and Nick D. Crosby, Esq., of Marquis Aurbach, hereby stipulate and agree 28

1 | |to extend the deadline for Plaintiffs to amend their complaint by two (2) days, to February 2 | |28, 2025. This Stipulation is being entered in good faith and not for purposes of delay. 3 The formal deadline to amend pleadings or add parties has passed and Plaintiffs are 4| |not seeking to extend that deadline. The amendment deadline to be extended by this 5 | |stipulation is the February 26, 2025, deadline set by the Court in its February 13, 2025, Order 6 | |granting the Parties’ first stipulation to extend the instant deadline. See ECF No. 71. 7 Pursuant to Local Rule 26-3 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b), the Parties submit that good 8 | |cause exists for the extension requested. The Parties acknowledge that, pursuant to Local 9 | |Rule 26-3, a stipulation to extend a deadline must be submitted to the Court no later than 21 10 | |days before the expiration of the subject deadline, and that a request made within 21 days 11 | |must be supported by a showing of good cause. As the Court provided fourteen (14) days for

_ 12] |amendment pursuant to the Parties’ previous stipulation, the instant stipulation could not be 13 | |filed within the Rule’s 21-day window. This is the second request for an extension of the 14 | |deadline for Plaintiffs to file a third amended complaint. 15 Plaintiffs require the additional time to fully articulate and adequately plead the 16 | |claims in their amended complaint, particularly to cure the deficiencies relied upon by this 17 | |Court in partially granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. See ECF No. 64. While Plaintiffs’ 18 | |counsel has diligently endeavored to meet this deadline, several competing deadlines (both 19 | |anticipated and unanticipated) required Plaintiffs’ counsel’s urgent attention. Additionally, 20 | |Ms. McLetchie was required to travel to Carson City February 23-24, 2025. Furthermore, |Ms. McLetchie suffered a death in the family on February 23, 2025. Finally, the Parties 22 | |together request this in good faith and to further the resolution of this complicated case on 23 | |the merits, and not for any purpose of delay. 24 The Parties thus respectfully request an extension of time for Plaintiffs to file their 25 | |third amended complaint to enable to them to conduct necessary additional investigation as 26 | |to their claims so that this matter is fairly resolved on the merits with a third amended 27 | |complaint that fully reflects Plaintiffs’ claims. “Good cause to extend a discovery deadline 28 | jexists ‘if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the

1 | Jextension.’” Derosa v. Blood Sys., Inc., No. 2:13-cv-0137-JCM-NJK, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2 | 108235, 2013 WL 3975764, at 1 (D. Nev. Aug. 1, 2013) (quoting Johnson v. Mammoth 3 | |Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992)); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 (providing 4 | |that the Rules of Civil Procedure “should be construed, administered, and employed by the 5 | |court and the parties to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action 6 | |and proceeding”). 7 Based on the foregoing stipulation, the Parties request that the deadline for 8 | |Plaintiffs to file their third amended complaint to supplement their Monel! and equal 9 | |protection claims be extended an additional two (2) days, to February 28, 2025. 10 11 Dated this 26th day of February, 2025. Dated this 26th day of February, 2025. 12 MCLETCHIE LAW MARQUIS AURBACH

By: /s/Leo S. Wolpert By: _ /s/ Nick D. Crosby 14 Margaret A. McLetchie, Esq. Nick D. Crosby, Esq. 3 ce 15 Nevada Bar No. 10931 Nevada Bar No. 8996 Leo S. Wolpert, Esq. Tabetha J. Steinberg, Esq. 16 Nevada Bar No. 12658 Nevada Bar No.16756 ~ 602 South 10th Street 10001 Park Run Drive 17 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 Las Vegas, Nevada 89145 18 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Michael Attorneys for Defendants Las Vegas Rogers and Nikita Wright Metropolitan Police Department, 19 Sheriff Joseph Lombardo, Sgt. Alfredo 50 Quintero, and Officer Praveen Raj 21 22 ORDER 23 The parties’ stipulation [ECF No. 74] is approved nunc pro tunc to February 26, “) 24 | | 2025. The deadline for plaintiffs to file their third amended complaint is extended to 25 | |February 28, 2025. LZ 26 Le UNITEDSTATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28 DATED: February 27, 2025