White v. Leavitt
Opinion
Nevada Bar No. 5781 Nevada Bar No. 14892 1980 Festival Plaza Drive, Suite 650 4 Las Vegas, Nevada 89135 Telephone: (702) 792-7000 5 Fax: (702) 796-7181 landerson@kcnvlaw.com 6 kkalkowski@kcnvlaw.com
7 Attorneys for Defendants, Daniel Holm, Craig Garnette, 8 Gary Ramirez (erroneously sued as P. Ramirez), Alex Gonzalez (erroneously sued as Alex Gonzales), 9 and Ernest Spear
10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 12
13 TONEY A. WHITE, CASE NO.: 2:18-cv-00008-JAD-BNW
14 Plaintiff, vs. LVMPD DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR 15 EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE MICHELLE LEAVITT; ET AL. REPLY BRIEF 16 Defendants. 17
18 Defendants Daniel Holm, Craig Garnette, Gary Ramirez, Alex Gonzalez, and Ernest 19 Spear (collectively, “LVMPD Defendants”), through their counsel, Kaempfer Crowell, move for 20 a one-week extension of time to file a Reply in support of their Motion to (1) Revoke Plaintiff’s 21 In Forma Pauperis Status and (2) Issue an Order to Show Cause as to Why This Case Should Not 22 Be Dismissed With Prejudice, (ECF Nos. 75, 76). The current due date for the Reply is 23 November 10, 2022. The extended due date will be November 17, 2022. Good cause supports 24 this extension based on an unexpected medical procedure for the undersigned counsel, as further 1 explained in the Memorandum of Points and Authorities below. 2 DATED this 7th day of November, 2022.
4 By: /s/ Kristopher J. Kalkowski 5 LYSSA S. ANDERSON (Nevada Bar No. 5781) KRISTOPHER J. KALKOWSKI (Nevada Bar No. 14892) 6 1980 Festival Plaza Drive, Suite 650 Las Vegas, Nevada 89135 7 Attorneys for Defendants, 8 Daniel Holm, Craig Garnette, and Gary Ramirez (erroneously sued as P. Ramirez) 9 and Alex Gonzalez (erroneously sued as Alex Gonzales) and Ernest Spear 10
13 Plaintiff Toney White is pursuing this lawsuit in his pro se capacity while incarcerated at 14 the High Desert State Prison. One month after being served with this lawsuit for the first time, 15 LVMPD Defendants filed the now-pending Motion to (1) Revoke Plaintiff’s In Forma Pauperis 16 (“IFP”) Status and (2) Issue an Order to Show Cause as to Why This Case Should Not Be 17 Dismissed With Prejudice, (ECF Nos. 75, 76). This Motion concerns Plaintiff’s apparently 18 fraudulent procurement of IFP status so that he could proceed without paying the filing fees 19 required from all litigants when bringing a civil lawsuit in this District. 20 Twelve days after LVMPD Defendants filed their Motion, (ECF Nos. 75, 76), Plaintiff 21 requested a thirty extension of time to file a Response. (Mot. Ext. Time, ECF No. 77) (filed 22 October 12, 2022). The Court granted Plaintiff’s request, making the due date November 13, 23 2022. (Order, ECF No. 78). Plaintiff ultimately filed his Response on November 3, 2022. 24 Accordingly, the deadline for LVMPD Defendants’ Reply is now November 10, 2022. 2 LVMPD Defendants request a one-week extension of time to file a Reply in support of 3 their Motion to (1) Revoke Plaintiff’s In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) Status and (2) Issue an Order to 4 Show Cause as to Why This Case Should Not Be Dismissed With Prejudice, (ECF Nos. 75, 76).
5 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6 and this District’s Local Rule IA 6-1 govern this request. Both 6 Rules impose a “good cause” standard to secure an extension of a deadline that has not yet 7 expired. “Good cause” is “a non-rigorous standard” that is satisfied when the movant provides 8 reasons why adequate briefing cannot occur under current deadlines. Ahanchian v. Xenon 9 Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1259 (9th Cir. 2010). Requests for extensions of time made before 10 the applicable deadline should “normally . . . be granted in the absence of bad faith on the part of 11 the party seeking relief or prejudice to the adverse party.” Id. (quoting 4B Charles Alan Wright 12 & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1165 (3d ed. 2004)). 13 Here, good cause exists for a one-week extension of time based on the undersigned 14 having an unexpected and urgent surgery scheduled for November 7, 2022. The undersigned
15 will likely be out of the office until November 10, 2022, which is the same day as the current 16 deadline to file the at-issue Reply. A one-week extension of time will ensure that counsel has 17 enough time to properly brief the potentially case-dispositive issues raised in LVMPD 18 Defendant’s Motion. 19 No prejudice will occur to the parties from a one week extension. Discovery in this case 20 will continue on its current schedule, and the parties will not have to re-schedule hearings, 21 depositions, or other critical events in this case if the Court grants this limited extension of time. 23 LVMPD Defendants respectfully request a one-week extension of time to file a Reply in
24 support of their Motion to (1) Revoke Plaintiff’s In Forma Pauperis Status and (2) Issue an Order 1 to Show Cause as to Why This Case Should Not Be Dismissed With Prejudice, (ECF Nos. 75, 2 76), so that the due date will change from November 10, 2022, to November 17, 2022. 3 DATED this 7th day of November, 2022. By: _/s/ Kristopher J. Kalkowski 6 LYSSA S. ANDERSON (Nevada Bar No. 5781) KRISTOPHER J. KALKOWSKI (Nevada Bar No. 14892) 7 1980 Festival Plaza Drive, Suite 650 Las Vegas, Nevada 89135 Attorneys for Defendants, 9 Daniel Holm, Craig Garnette, and Gary Ramirez (erroneously sued as P. Ramirez) 10 and Alex Gonzalez (erroneously sued as Alex Gonzales) and Ernest Spear 1] IT IS ORDERED that ECF No. 81 is GRANTED 13 for good cause shown. 14 x m Le WEES 15 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 CROWELL Festival Plaza Drive Suite 650 Nevada 89135
2 I certify that Iam an employee of KAEMPFER CROWELL, and that on the date below, I 3 caused the foregoing LVMPD DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO 4 FILE REPLY BRIEF to be served via CM/ECF and/or First Class Mail (where indicated) 5 addressed to the following: 6 Toney A. White, #1214172 High Desert State Prison 7 P.O. Box 650 Indian Springs, NV 89074 Plaintiff, Pro Se (Via CM/ECF, pursuant to Fifth Amended 10 General Order 2012-01) 11 DATED this 7th day of November, 2022. 12 __ —_ = Se 13 ie cS — □□ = ee 14 ww) □□ 15 an employee of Kaempfer Crowell
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 CROWELL Festival Plaza Drive Suite 650 Nevada 89135
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
White v. Leavitt (White v. Leavitt) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.