Martinez v. Creative Concepts, Inc., et al

Filing 18

ORDER Granting 12 Motion to Extend Time to Respond re 4 First MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, or in the Alternative, MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings. Responses due by 4/1/2013. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 3/25/13. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

Case 2:13-cv-00248-MMD-VCF Document 12 Filed 03/15/13 Page 1 of 4

1
2
3

STANLEY D. BROOME
Texas Bar No. 24029457
1155 W. Wall Street, Suite 102
Grapevine, Texas 76051
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF

4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6
7

JOSE MARTINEZ

8
Plaintiff,
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

vs.
CREATIVE CONCEPTS, INC.,
NPL CONSTRUCTION CO., SPEIDEL
ENTERPRISES, INC., d/b/a CREATIVE
CONCEPTS, JOHN SPEIDEL, DAVID
SPEIDEL, ELIA VALLEJO,
RICARDO PRINGLE, MIKE KEMPER,
CAVIN DONNELL, EARL MAHAN,
PAUL SCHELLY d/b/a LAW OFFICES
OF PAUL SCHELLY

16
17

Defendants.

§ Case No.Action No. 2:13-cv-00248
Civil 2:13-cv-00248-MMD-VCF
§
§
§
ORDER GRANTING
ORDER APPROVING
§
§
AGREED MOTION TO
§
EXTEND RESPONSE
§
DEADLINE
§
§
§
§
§
(First Request)
§
§
§
§
§

18
19

COMES NOW PLAINTIFF through undersigned counsel who respectfully requests

20

that the deadline to respond to Defendants’ First Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim

21

(Doc. No. 4) be extended to April 1, 2013 for the following reasons:

22
23

1. Defendant NPL filed its First Motion for Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, or
in the Alternative, Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, on 2/12/2013. The date for response

24
25

was 3/10/2012.

26

2. This case is a companion case to three other cases, including Hernandez et. al. v.

27

Creative Concepts, et al., Cause No. 2:10-cv-2132, U.S. Dist. Nevada; Rodriguez v. Creative

28

Concepts, Et. al., Cause No. 3:12-cv-02978, U.S. Dist. Northern District of Texas; and Martinez

Plaintiff’s First Request for Extension re: Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 4)

Page 1 of 4

Case 2:13-cv-00248-MMD-VCF Document 12 Filed 03/15/13 Page 2 of 4

1

v. Creative Concepts, Et. al., Cause no. 3:12-cv-02979. All of the cases arise out of the same or

2

similar transactions and events. The parties are engaged in a wide variety of depositions, motion

3

practice and discovery in the companion cases. Plaintiff’s counsel made a mistake and failed to

4

calendar the response date for the Motion to Dismiss, and the deadline was inadvertently missed.

5
3. By way of explanation, but not excuse, several other deadlines in the companion

6
7

cases fell at or near the response deadline for the Motion to Dismiss in this case. The mistake

8

was not intentional or caused by lack of attention to the issues involved in these matters, but was

9

caused by confusion related to calendaring depositions, expert deadlines and other deadlines that

10

apply to the companion cases.

11

4. The parties have been litigating cases related to this transaction since 2009. To

12
date, no prior deadlines have been missed in this or any of the companion cases. During the time
13
14

that the deadline was missed, Plaintiffs counsel was heavily involved on a daily basis in

15

prosecuting and defending matters related to the companion cases. Much of this work will

16

ultimately benefit the case at bar, thus reducing any negative effects caused by the requested

17

extension.

18

5. Undersigned counsel, Stan Broome, is solely responsible for missing the deadline

19
and accepts full responsibility for missing the deadline.
20
21

6. Undersigned counsel has conferred with counsel for Defendants NPL/Cavin

22

Donnell/Ricardo Pringle and counsel for Defendant Earl Mahan.

23

Donnell/Ricardo Pringle and counsel for Earl Mahan are not opposed to the extension requested

24

herein. No other defendants have made an appearance.

25
26

Counsel for NPL/Cavin

7. This case is in its infancy. No scheduling order has been entered. It is not
expected that this extension will adversely delay the prosecution of the case.

27
WHEREFORE, for the reasons stated herein Plaintiff respectfully requests that the
28

Plaintiff’s First Request for Extension re: Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 4)

Page 2 of 4

Case 2:13-cv-00248-MMD-VCF Document 12 Filed 03/15/13 Page 3 of 4

1

deadline to respond to the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 4) be extended to April 1, 2013.

2
3

Respectfully submitted,

4
5

By: /s/ Stan Broome___________
STANLEY D. BROOME
Texas State Bar No. 24029457
BROOME LAW FIRM, PLLC
1155 Decker Court, Ste. 102
Grapevine, Texas 76051
[phone] (Telephone)
[phone] (Facsimile)
[e-mail]

6
7
8
9
10

CHRISTENSEN LAW OFFICES
DAWN ALLYSA HOOKER
Nevada Bar No. 17019
1000 S. Valley View
Las Vegas, NV 89107
[phone] (Telephone)
[phone] (Facsimile)

11
12
13
14
15

ATTORNEYS FOR THE PLAINTIFFS

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

ORDER
IT IS SO ORDERED.

24
25
26

March 25, 2013
DATED:______________________

__________________________________
UNITED M. DU
MIRANDASTATES DISTRICT JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

27
28

Plaintiff’s First Request for Extension re: Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 4)

Page 3 of 4