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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?