Cooper et al v. Clark County Nevada et al

Filing 32

ORDER that Plaintiffs First and Second Motions to Extend Time 24 and 26 are GRANTED re 22 First MOTION to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Kent J. Dawson on 11/22/10. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ECS)

Cooper et al v. Clark County Nevada et al

Doc. 32

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Currently before the Court is Plaintiffs' First Motion to Extend Time (#24) filed October 25, 2010. Defendants filed a Response in Opposition (#25). No reply was filed. Also before the Court is Plaintiff's Second Motion to Extend Time (#26), filed November 8, 2010. Defendants filed a Response in Opposition (#31). To date, no reply has been filed. Plaintiffs' immediate Motions both seek an extension of time in which to file a Response to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (#22), filed on October 6, 2010. Plaintiffs' first request seeks an extension of fourteen (14) days--until November 8, 2010--in which to file a responsive pleading. Defendants' Opposition to the Motion argues that Plaintiffs' counsel calculated the time for filing a responsive pleading incorrectly, and that a responsive pleading was actually due on October 21, 2010. Defendants additionally aver that Plaintiffs' Motion fails to demonstrate excusable neglect as required for an untimely request for extension of time under Local Rule 6.1. v. CLARK COUNTY NEVADA, et al., Defendants. DAVID COOPER, et al., Plaintiffs, Case No. 2:10-CV-00763-KJD-PAL ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Plaintiffs' second request seeks an additional extension of one (1) day--until November 9, 2010--in which to file a responsive pleading to Defendants' dispositive Motion. Again, Defendants' Opposition to the Motion for Extension of Time avers that Plaintiffs' counsel calculated the time in which to file a responsive pleading incorrectly under the Federal Civil, and Local Rules of Practice. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d), when service of a Motion is completed electronically, as in this case, three days must be added to the period of time to file responsive pleading. Here, as Defendants' Motion was filed on October 6, 2010, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d) and Local Rule 72(b), Plaintiffs' Responsive Pleading was due on October 25, 2010, the day Plaintiffs filed their First Motion for Extension. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs' First and Second Motions to Extend Time (##24, 26), are GRANTED. DATED this 22nd day of November 2010.

_____________________________ Kent J. Dawson United States District Judge

2