Elias v. Navasartian, et al.

Filing 27

ORDER GRANTING Defendant Navasartian's 25 Motion for Extension of Time Nunc Pro Tunc; ORDER DEEMING 26 Motion for Summary Judgment Timely Filed, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 12/29/16. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JEFF ELIAS,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

1:15-cv-01567-LJO-GSA-PC

vs.
VAZRICK NAVASARTIAN, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT
NAVASARTIAN’S MOTION FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME NUNC PRO
TUNC
(ECF No. 25.)
ORDER DEEMING MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT TIMELY
FILED
(ECF No. 26.)

18
19

I.

BACKGROUND

20

Jeff Elias (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding pro se in a civil rights action pursuant to

21

42 U.S.C. ' 1983. This case now proceeds with Plaintiff’s initial Complaint filed on October

22

14, 2015, against defendants Vazrick Navasartian and J. Dubiel, D.D.S., on Plaintiff’s Eighth

23

Amendment deliberate indifference claim and a state law medical negligence claim. (ECF No.

24

1.) The deadline for the parties to file dispositive motions in this case is December 2, 2016.

25

(Discovery and Scheduling Order, ECF No. 14.)

26

On December 1, 2016, defendant Navasartian (“Defendant”) filed a motion to extend

27

the deadline for filing dispositive motions. (ECF No. 25.) The Court construes Defendant’s

28

motion as a motion for extension of time.

1

DEFENDANT NAVASARTIAN’S MOTION

II.

2

Defendant requests an extension of time until December 23, 2016, in which to file a

3

motion for summary judgment. Defense counsel argues that due to her deadlines and tasks on

4

other cases, as well as the unavailability of Defendant and defense counsel due to family

5

medical care and the Thanksgiving holiday, Defendant will be unable to complete his

6

dispositive motion by the current December 2, 2016 deadline. (Whitney Decl., ECF No. 25 at

7

6 ¶¶3-6.)

8

The Court finds good cause to grant Defendant an extension of time. On December 13,

9

2016, Defendant filed his motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 26.) In light of the fact

10

that the motion for summary judgment has been filed, Defendant’s motion for extension of time

11

shall be granted nunc pro tunc, and the motion for summary judgment shall be deemed timely

12

filed.

13

III.

CONCLUSION

14

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

15

1.

16
17
18

Defendant Navasartian’s motion for extension of time, filed on December 1,

2016, is GRANTED nunc pro tunc; and
2.

The motion for summary judgment filed by Defendant Navasartian on

December 13, 2016, is deemed timely filed.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

December 29, 2016

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE