Brooks v. Walsh et al

Filing 50

ORDER. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this case is temporarily stayed pending the Court's decision on Defendants' 49 Motion for Stay of Proceedings Pending Plaintiff's Interlocutory Appeal Before the Ninth Circuit or, Alternatively, Motion for Third Extension of Time to File Motion for Summary Judgment. Supplemental Brief due by 1/26/2016. Plaintiff's Response to 49 Motion due by 2/12/2016. Defendants' Reply in Support of 49 Motion due by 2/22/2016. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 01/19/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - NEV)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
9
SHANE BROOKS,

10
11
12
13

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
vs.
)
)
LISA WALSH, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)

Case No. 2:14-cv-00497-APG-CWH
ORDER

14
15

Presently before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for Stay of Proceedings Pending

16

Plaintiff’s Interlocutory Appeal Before the Ninth Circuit or, Alternatively, Motion for Third

17

Extension of Time to File Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 49), filed on January 5, 2016.

18

Plaintiff’s deadline to respond to the motion has not yet expired.

19

Defendants request that the case be stayed pending the outcome Plaintiff’s interlocutory

20

appeal of various orders in this case. (See Notice of Appeal (ECF No. 41); Am. Notice of Appeal

21

(ECF No. 47).) Although Defendants cite legal authority indicating the Court has the authority to

22

stay a case for the purpose of judicial economy pending arbitration and indicating that the Court has

23

broad discretion in supervising the pretrial phase of litigation, Defendants do not provide any legal

24

authority regarding whether it is appropriate to stay a case pending an interlocutory appeal.

25

Alternatively, Defendants request that the Court extend the dispositive motions deadline,

26

which expired on January 14, 2016, by a minimum of 30 days. Defendants state that there is good

27

cause for the requested extension and excusable neglect for their untimely motion because their

28

counsel recently was hired by the Office of the Attorney General, was assigned to 22 cases in

1

various stages of litigation, was out of town over the holidays on a pre-paid vacation, and is

2

inundated with a large number of court hearings and deadlines in other cases.1

3

Local Rule 26-4 requires all motions to extend a deadline set forth in a scheduling order to

4

be filed no later than 21 days before the expiration of the subject deadline. Part of the underlying

5

rationale for Local Rule 26-4 is to avoid the situation in which the Court currently finds itself:

6

having to attempt to decide a motion to extend a deadline before there has been time for the

7

opposing party to respond to the motion. Given that Defendants did not file their motion 21 days

8

before the expiration of the dispositive motions deadline, Plaintiff’s deadline to respond to the

9

motion, which currently is January 22, 2016, has not yet run.

10

Given that the dispositive motions deadline has expired, and that Plaintiff has not yet had an

11

opportunity to respond to the motion, the Court temporarily will stay this case pending the Court’s

12

order on this motion. During the temporary stay, the Court will require Defendants to file a

13

supplemental brief with legal authority addressing the specific issue of whether a stay pending an

14

interlocutory appeal is appropriate. The Court will provide Plaintiff with additional time to

15

respond to Defendants’ motion and supplemental brief. In its order on the motion, the Court will

16

set a new dispositive motions deadline, if necessary.

17

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this case is temporarily stayed pending the Court’s

18

decision on Defendants’ Motion for Stay of Proceedings Pending Plaintiff’s Interlocutory Appeal

19

Before the Ninth Circuit or, Alternatively, Motion for Third Extension of Time to File Motion for

20

Summary Judgment (ECF No. 49).

21
22

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants must file a supplemental brief on the specific
issue of whether a stay pending an interlocutory appeal is appropriate by January 26, 2016.

23
24

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff must respond to Defendants’ Motion for Stay of
Proceedings Pending Plaintiff’s Interlocutory Appeal Before the Ninth Circuit or, Alternatively,

25
1

The Court notes that Defendants’ former counsel also filed an untimely motion (ECF No. 39)
to extend the dispositive motions deadline, stating that excusable neglect existed for the untimely motion
27 because counsel had been out of the office unexpectedly and was inundated with a large number of court
hearings and deadlines in other cases. The Court granted that motion and set the dispositive motions
28 deadline for January 14, 2016. (Order (ECF No. 43).)
26

2

1

Motion for Third Extension of Time to File Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 49) and

2

Defendants’ supplemental brief by February 12, 2016.

3
4

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants may file a reply in support of their motion by
February 22, 2016.

5
6

DATED: January 19, 2016.

7
8
9
10

______________________________________
________________
__
__ __
________
C.W. Hoffman, Jr.
W. Hoffman, Jr.
ff
United States Magistrate Judge
nited
Magistrate Jud
i

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3