Schomer v. Gonzalez - Individually

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 10 * * * DWAYNE L. SCHOMER, as special CASE NO. 3:23-cv-00390-ART-CSD 11 administrator of THE ESTATE OF KEATON M. SCHOMER and individually; and 12 BRAYLEN SCHOMER, individually, ORDER GRANTING 13 Plaintiffs, STIPULATION TO EXTEND DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO 14 DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR vs. SUMMARY JUDGMENT [ECF NOS. 15 68, 70, 71, 72] AND JOINDERS TO ELKO COUNTY; ELKO COUNTY SAME [ECF NOS. 73, 74, 75, 76] 16 SHERIFF’S OFFICE; SHERIFF AITOR 17 NARVAIZA, individually; UNDERSHERIFF (Second Request) JUSTIN AIMES, individually; SERGEANT 18 MICHAEL SILVA, individually; DEPUTY TREVOR L. SNEED, individually; DEPUTY 19 DOUGLAS HOLLADAY, individually; DEPUTY ERIKA GONZALEZ; MEDALLUS 20 & VACHAROTHONE LTD; DR. RACHOT 21 VACHAROTHONE, individually; BAILEY POWELL, individually; GEOFFREY FISHER, 22 individually; MERCEDES COCHRELL, individually; LETISCYA CHACON, 23 individually; DOE SUPERVISORS I-X; DOE 24 DEPUTIES I-X; DOE MEDICAL STAFF I-X; and ROE ENTITIES I-X, 25 Defendants. 26 27 /// 1 Plaintiffs DWAYNE L. SCHOMER, as administrator of THE ESTATE OF KEATON M. 2 SCHOMER and individually, and BRAYLEN SCHOMER, individually (collectively, 3 “Plaintiffs”), by and through their undersigned attorneys at Clark Hill PLC, Defendants ELKO 4 COUNTY, SHERIFF AITOR NARVAIZA, UNDERSHERIFF JUSTIN AMES, (collectively, 5 “Elko County Defendants”), by and through their undersigned attorneys at Marquis Aurbach; 6 DEPUTY TREVOR L. SNEED, DEPUTY DOUGLAS HOLLADAY, DEPUTY ERIKA 7 GONZALEZ, DEPUTY DAVID HATCH, and DEPUTY HANNAH KENDALL (collectively, 8 “Elko Deputy Defendants”), by and through their undersigned attorneys at Erickson, Thorpe & 9 Swainston, Ltd.; Defendants MEDALLUS & VACHAROTHONE LTD, DR. RACHOT 10 VACHAROTHONE, BAILEY POWELL, GEOFFREY FISHER, MERCEDES COCHRELL, 11 and LETISCYA CHACON, (collectively, “Medallus Defendants”) by and through their 12 undersigned attorneys at Rencher Anjewierden; and SERGEANT MICHAEL SILVA, (“Silva”) 13 by and though his undersigned attorney, at Goicoechea, Digrazia, Coyle& Stanton, LTD., hereby 14 agree and jointly stipulate to the following: 15 /// 16 /// 17 /// 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 1. On June 18, 2025, Silva filed a Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 68]; 2 Medallus Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 70]; Elko County 3 Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 71]; and Elko Deputy Defendants 4 filed a Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 72] (collectively, “Motions”). 5 2. On June 25, 2025, Elko County Defendants filed a Joinder to Silva’s Motion [ECF 6 No. 73] and a Joinder to the Elko Deputy Defendants’ Motion [ECF No. 74]; and Silva filed a 7 Joinder to the Elko County Defendants’ Motion [ECF No. 75] and a Joinder to the Elko Deputy 8 Defendants’ Motion [ECF No. 76] (collectively, “Joinders”). 9 3. While Plaintiffs’ responses to the Motions and Joinders were originally due on July 10 9, 2025, the Parties originally stipulated to extend the deadline to September 8, 2025 [ECF No. 11 77], and the Court granted same [ECF No. 78]. 12 4. As noted in the first Stipulation, LR 7-2 provides twenty-one (21) days to respond 13 to a motion for summary judgment regardless of whether there is one such motion or numerous 14 motions filed in an action. Here, Defendants filed four Motions for Summary Judgment. While 15 Defendants may have some commonality, they each present their own unique issues that need to 16 be addressed separately. As such, Plaintiffs request additional time to sufficiently to review, 17 research, and respond to the Motions. Due to work schedules, the Labor Day holiday, and the 18 health of one of the attorneys assisting with the responses, Plaintiffs’ counsel cannot meet the 19 current deadline and needs additional time. 20 5. As such, the Parties conferred and agreed to an additional seven-day extension for 21 Plaintiffs to file responses to the Motions and Joinders. 22 6. Therefore, the Parties request that the deadline for Plaintiffs’ responses to the 23 Motions and Joinders, currently September 8, 2025, be extended to September 15, 2025. 24 7. This is the second request to extend the deadline to file responses to the Motions 25 and Joinders. 26 /// 27 /// 1 8. This Stipulation is entered into in good faith and not for purposes of delay. 2 Respectfully submitted this 2™ day of September 2025. 3 || CLARK HILL PLC RUBSY LAW, PLLC /s/ William D. Schuller, Esq. /s/ Benjamin K. Lusty, Esq. PAOLA M. ARMENI, ESQ. CHRISTOPHER RUSBY, ESQ. 5 Nevada Bar No. 8357 Nevada Bar No. 11452 WILLIAM D. SCHULLER, ESQ. 36 Stewart Street 6 || Nevada Bar No. 11271 Reno, Nevada 89501 1700 S. Pavilion Center Dr.., #500 7 Las Vegas, Nevada 89135 RENCHER ANJEWIERDEN Attorneys for Plaintiffs BENJAMIN K. LUSTY, ESQ. 8 Utah Bar No. 12159 ERICKSON, THORPE & 460 South 400 East 9 || SWAINSTON, LTD. Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Attorneys for Medallus Defendants 10} /s/ Brent L. Ryman, Esq. BRENT L. RYMAN, ESQ. MARQUIS AURBACH 11 Nevada Bar No. 8648 PAUL M. BERTONE, Esq. /s/ Kaden P. Killpack, Esq. 12 Nevada Bar No. 4533 CRAIG R. ANDERSON, ESQ. 1885 South Arlington Ave., Suite 205 Nevada Bar No. 6882 13 Reno, Nevada 89509 KADEN P. KILLPACK, ESQ. Attorneys for Elko County Deputy Defendants Nevada Bar No. 16560 14 10001 Park Run Drive GOICOECHEA, DIGRAZIA, Las Vegas, Nevada 89145 15 | COYLE & STANTON, LTD. Attorneys for Defendants, Elko County, Sher Aitor Narvaiza, and Undersheriff Justin Aimes 16 || /s/ David M. Stanton, Esq. DAVID M. STANTON, ESQ. 17 Nevada Bar No. 4389 530 Idaho Street 18 | Elko, Nevada 89801 19 Attorney for Sergeant Michael Silva

20 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 23 Ye jlossed jd 24 ANNE R. TRAUM UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 25 DATED: September 3, 2025 26 27 28