Stewart v. Schreiner

CourtDistrict Court, D. Nevada
DecidedMarch 31, 2025
Docket2:23-cv-00277
StatusUnknown

This text of Stewart v. Schreiner (Stewart v. Schreiner) 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
Stewart v. Schreiner, (D. Nev. 2025).

Opinion

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5

6 ANTHONY STEWART, Case No. 2:23-cv-00277-MMD-NJK 7 Plaintiff(s), ORDER 8 v. [Docket No. 44] 9 JONAH SCHREINER, et al.,

10 Defendant(s). 11 Pending before the Court is Defendant Nicolette Joy Hawkins’ motion to extend case 12 management deadlines. Docket No. 44. Plaintiff filed a response indicating that he does not 13 oppose the extension request, but seeking more detail on the reasons for it. Docket No. 46. 14 Defendant filed a reply. Docket No. 48. 15 A request to extend unexpired deadlines in the scheduling order must be premised on a 16 showing of good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); Local Rule 26-3. The good cause analysis turns 17 on whether the subject deadlines cannot reasonably be met despite the exercise of diligence. 18 Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). 19 This motion is a mixed bag, as some of the reasons for the extension request are more 20 persuasive than others.1 Particularly as the request is unopposed and in light of the family issue 21 identified, the Court will allow the extension. With respect to the family issue, however, at some 22 point there needs to be either resolution of that issue or accommodations made such that counsel’s 23 cases can move forward with appropriate haste. For example, it is not clear why other attorneys 24 at counsel’s law firm cannot assist with these cases if lead counsel is unavailable for extended 25 periods of time. The Court is not inclined to continue allowing extensions on this basis ad 26 infinitum, particularly where, as here, the parties have not diligently conducted discovery. 27 1 Most significantly, that counsel is busy with other cases is not a basis to find good cause. 28 Williams v. James River Grp. Inc., 627 F. Supp. 3d 1172, 1179-80 (D. Nev. 2022). ] Accordingly, with that caveat, the Court GRANTS the motion to extend case management 2|| deadlines. The Court RESETS deadlines as follows: 3 e Amend pleadings/add parties: May 23, 2025 4 e Initial experts: April 23, 2025 5 e Rebuttal experts: May 23, 2025 6 e Discovery cutoff: June 23, 2025 7 e Dispositive motions: July 22, 2025 8 e Joint proposed pretrial order: August 21, 2025, or 30 days after resolution of dispositive 9 motions 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 Dated: March 31, 2025 AA 12 7 YA Nancy J»Koppe 13 United States Magistrate Judge 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)
Stewart v. Schreiner, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stewart-v-schreiner-nvd-2025.