McCarty v. Roos et al

Filing 90

ORDER that 88 Motion to Extend Time to Reply re 81 MOTION to Dismiss Official Capacity Claims; and 82 MOTION to Dismiss; is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall have up to and including 9/18/12 to respond to defendant's motion to dismiss individual c apacity claims 82 . Plaintiff may, if he so chooses, file an amended response to defendants' motion to dismiss official capacity claims 81 , also by 9/18/12. Defendants shall have up to and including 10/2/12 to file replies to plaintiff's responses; this date shall remain in effect regardless of the date plaintiff files his responses to defendants' motions to dismiss. FURTHER ORDERED that 86 Motion to Extend The Briefing Schedule is MOOT. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 9/10/12. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6
7
8

ROBERT JOSEPH MCCARTY,

9
10
11

2:11-CV-1538 JCM (RJJ)

Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN V. ROOS, et al.,

12
Defendants.

13
14

ORDER

15

Presently before the court is defendants John Roos and Joseph Koen’s revised motion for

16

extension of time to reply to plaintiff’s oppositions to defendants’ motions to dismiss (doc. # 81 and

17

82). (Doc. # 88).

18

Defendants assert that counsel responsible for this matter is scheduled to be out of town for

19

a work-related obligation around the time the reply briefs are due. (Doc. # 88, 3:6-10). Further,

20

defendants state that counsel’s demanding work schedule over the month interferes with her attention

21

to this matter. (Doc. # 88, 3:6-10).

22

Defendants also note plaintiff’s refusal to agree to this extension. Defendants represent that

23

plaintiff is concerned about waiving any rights and that plaintiff pointed out that the delay is

24

unrelated to issues presented in this case. (Doc. # 88, 2:18-20). While plaintiff is certainly entitled

25

to protect his rights throughout these proceedings; it is not clear how an extension in time prejudices

26

plaintiff.

27

...

28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

1

Good cause appearing,

2

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that defendants’ revised motion

3

for extension of time (doc. # 88) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED. In fairness plaintiff shall

4

have up to, and including September 18, 2012, to respond to defendant’s motion to dismiss

5

individual capacity claims (doc. # 82). Further, plaintiff may, if he so chooses, file an amended

6

response to defendants’ motion to dismiss official capacity claims (doc. # 81) also by September 18,

7

2012. Defendants shall have up to, and including, October 2, 2012, to file replies to plaintiff’s

8

responses; this date shall remain in effect regardless of the date plaintiff files his responses to

9

defendants’ motions to dismiss.

10
11
12

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants previous motion to extend the briefing schedule
(doc. # 86) be, and the same hereby is, moot by the filing of this revised motion.
DATED September 10, 2012.

13
14
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-2-