Phillips v. Dignified Transition Solutions et al

Filing 68

ORDER that 67 Second Stipulation to Continue Briefing is DENIED. Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 8/12/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - TR)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

MARY PHILLIPS,
4
5
6
7
8
9

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
vs.
)
)
DIGNIFIED TRANSITION SOLUTIONS;
)
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; DOES 1 through )
10,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

Case No.: 2:13-cv-02237-GMN-VCF
ORDER

10
11
12

Pending before the Court is the Second Stipulation to Continue Briefing (ECF No. 67)
filed by the parties in this case on August 11, 2015.

13

Defendants removed this case to federal court on December 6, 2013. (Not. of Removal,

14

ECF No. 1). Plaintiff subsequently filed her Amended Complaint (ECF No. 39) on September

15

12, 2014, and Defendants filed their Answer to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (ECF No. 40)

16

on September 29, 2014. On December 1, 2014, both parties filed their respective Motions for

17

Summary Judgment (ECF Nos. 43–44). Responses in Opposition to these motions were

18

initially due by December 25, 2014.

19

On December 3, 2014, however, the Court entered an Ordered (ECF No. 48) scheduling

20

a Settlement Conference for February 19, 2015. In light of the settlement conference, the Court

21

granted a Stipulation (ECF No. 50) filed by the parties requesting a stay of briefing on the

22

Motions for Summary Judgment pending conclusion of the settlement conference. When the

23

settlement conference subsequently concluded on June 12, 2015 without reaching a settlement,

24

the Court provided the parties until July 13, 2015—thirty-one days after the conclusion of the

25

settlement conference—in order to file their Response briefs. (Minutes of Proceedings, ECF

Page 1 of 2

1

No. 63). The Court then granted the parties a further extension until August 13, 2015—an

2

additional thirty-one days—to file their Response briefs. (Order on Stip. ECF No. 66). Now, a

3

mere two days before the current deadline and over seven months after the original deadline,

4

the parties have asked for an additional eighteen days to file their briefs in order to

5

“accommodate recently developed conflicts in the schedules of both plaintiff and defense

6

counsel.” (Sec. Stip. to Continue, ECF No. 67).

7

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b), “When an act may or must be done

8

within a specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend the time . . . if a request is made,

9

before the original time or its extension expires . . . .” Here, the parties have had two months

10

since the conclusion of settlement negotiations to draft and file their Response briefs.

11

Furthermore, the underlying motions have now been pending for over eight months. In light of

12

these extended periods of time for the parties to evaluate their positions and draft their briefs,

13

the Court finds that a need to “accommodate recently developed conflicts in the schedules” of

14

counsel, asserted a mere two days before the deadline, does not constitute good cause to further

15

extend the briefing schedule.

16

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Second Stipulation to Continue Briefing (ECF

17

No. 67) is DENIED. The Responses in Opposition to the parties’ respective Motions for

18

Summary Judgment remain due on August 13, 2015.

19

DATED this 12th day of August, 2015.

20
21
22

___________________________________
Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge
United States District Judge

23
24
25

Page 2 of 2