Wagers v. Robinson Nevada Mining Company

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: April 8, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-00055
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 * * *

4 BRETT WAGERS, Case No. 3:25-CV-00055-MMD-CLB

5 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO EXTEND TIME AND 6 v. DENYING DEFENDANTS MOTION TO SHORT TIME FOR PLAINTIFF TO FILE 7 ROBINSON NEVADA MINING AN OPPOSITION COMPANY, MARK BERES II, & JOHN 8 HAYNES, [ECF Nos. 13, 16]

9 Defendants.

10 Pro se Plaintiff Brett Wagers filed this employment discrimination and intentional 11 torts suit against Defendants. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint 12 (“FAC”) on March 2, 2025. (ECF No. 11.) Pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion 13 for an extension of time to file responsive pleading to the FAC. (ECF No. 13) Plaintiff 14 opposed the Defendants’ request, (ECF No. 17), and Defendants replied, (ECF No. 18). 15 I. LEGAL STANDARD 16 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1) governs extensions of time and provides: 17 (1) In General. When an act may or must be done within a specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend the time: 18 (A) with or without motion or notice if the court acts, or if a request is 19 made, before the original time or its extension expires; or 20 (B) on motion made after the time has expired if the party failed to act 21 because of excusable neglect. 22 “Good cause” is a non-rigorous standard that has been construed broadly across 23 procedural and statutory contexts. See Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 24 1259 (9th Cir. 2010). Requests for extensions of time made before the applicable deadline 25 has passed should “normally . . . be granted in the absence of bad faith on the part of the 26 party seeking relief or prejudice to the adverse party.” Id. (citing 4B Charles Alan Wright 27 & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1165 (3d ed. 2004)). 1 II. DISCUSSION 2 Here, the served Defendants’ deadline to respond to the FAC is April 10, 2025. 3 (ECF No. 13.) Defendant John Haynes voluntary waived service and his deadline to 4 respond is June 1, 2025. (ECF No. 12.) Defendants request an extension until May 13, 5 2025, for the served Defendants to file responsive pleading to the FAC. Defense counsel 6 attempted to work with Plaintiff clear up service and responsive pleading deadlines via 7 stipulation, which Plaintiff declined. (ECF No. 13 at 2.) In their motion, Defendants request 8 that the May 13, 2025, deadline apply to all Defendants so that Defendants can file a 9 single responsive pleading. (Id.) Defendants also request the extension because new 10 counsel has been brought into the case who “needs the opportunity to be brought up to 11 speed.” (ECF No. 13 at 2.) Defendants also assert that Defendants’ counsel have multiple 12 overlapping and urgent discovery responsibilities. (Id. at 3.) 13 In his opposition, Plaintiff asserts that Defendants are without good cause and the 14 Court should be “distrust[ing]” of Defendants’ counsel. (ECF No. 17). He argues that an 15 extension would be “prejudicial” and Defendants tactics were done “to prevent a summary 16 judgment and create more time.” (Id.) He also argues that “he is at a tactical disadvantage 17 if time were extended” but this ignores the fact that one of the Defendants would not be 18 required to file a responsive pleading until June 1, 2025 if the Court denied Defendants’ 19 motion. (Id.) Plaintiff motion veers into merits and asserts the “destruction of email 20 evidence.” (Id.) However, it is not appropriate for the Court to make merits determination 21 currently nor address concerns of destruction of evidence where it does not relate to the 22 motion to extend time. 23 The Court finds good cause appearing and grants Defendants motion to extend 24 time to file a responsive pleading. As Defendants note, the proposed date to file a single 25 responsive pleading serves judicial economy. (ECF No. 17.) This date is sooner than the 26 responsive pleading deadline of at least one Defendant, John Haynes. (Id.) Defendants 27 are seeking to file a single responsive pleading at a date sooner than at least one of the 1 litigation and permits an efficient decision-making process by the Court. The Court 2 expects the Defendants to stick to their proposed plan to file a single responsive pleading. 3 The Court finds no reason to suspect Defendants have engaged in bad faith where 4 the only thing that has taken place is service and a motion to extend time in the first 5 instance. An extension of just over one month to file a responsive pleading “is a 6 reasonable, non-abusive extension length.” Kerner v. U.S. Veteran Affs. Med. Ctr., No. 7 2:23-CV-01872-JAD-MDC, 2025 WL 315146, at *2 (D. Nev. Jan. 28, 2025). Granting 8 Defendants’ motion does not prevent a summary judgment motion to be filed, were the 9 case to reach that point in the course of litigation. Defendants have shown an attempt to 10 confer in good faith and are proposing an approach that prioritizes judicial economy for 11 the Court and the parties. Additionally, changing of members of a litigation team is routine 12 for a variety of reasons, (i.e. overlapping deadlines, individuals leaving firms, urgent 13 personal matters) and permitting an extension in this case does not set but in fact aligns 14 with precedent. See id. 15 Finally, Plaintiff’s refusal to afford the Defendants a brief one-month extension of 16 their answer deadline also reflects a misunderstanding of the speed at which federal civil 17 litigation moves and the Court's expectations for common courtesies. Rule 6 of the 18 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule IA 6-1 permits the Court to extend 19 deadlines and the Ninth Circuit has instructed district courts that this rule should “be 20 liberally construed to effectuate the general purpose of seeing that cases are tried on the 21 merits.” Ahanchian, Inc., 624 F.3d at 1258-59. 22 The Court expects Plaintiff, even as a pro se litigant, to show the proper 23 professionalism and common courtesies that is expected of all litigants in federal court. 24 Disputes over extending or shortening time are generally disfavored and should not 25 require court intervention. 26 /// 27 /// 1| Ill. CONCLUSION 2 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for an extension of time to file a responsive pleading, (ECF No. 13), be GRANTED. All named Defendants have 4) until May 13, 2025, to answer or otherwise respond to the FAC. 5 Furthermore, Defendants’ motion to shorten time for Plaintiff to file an opposition, 6 | (ECF No. 16), is DENIED as moot. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 DATED: April 8, 2025 . 9 10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28