Thomas v. United States of America
Filing
18
ORDER Granting 17 Motion to Extend Time to File Dispositive Motions. Motions due by 4/20/2016. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 3/1/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)
1
2
3
4
5
6
DANIEL G. BOGDEN
United States Attorney
District of Nevada
PATRICK A. ROSE
Assistant United States Attorney
Nevada Bar No. 5109
333 Las Vegas Boulevard South, Suite 5000
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
Telephone: 702-388-6336
Facsimile: 702-388-6787
Email: patrick.rose@usdoj.gov
7
Attorneys for the United States
8
9
10
11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
12
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
13
GREGORY M. THOMAS,
Plaintiff,
14
15
16
17
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.
)
)
) Case No: 2:15-cv-00291-APG-NJK
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
18
19
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS
(Second Request)
20
21
Pursuant to Rule 6(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 6-1 of this
22
Court’s Local Rules, the United States moves for an extension of thirty days, from March 21,
23
2016 to April 20, 2016, to file dispositive motions. This is the second request for an extension of
24
such deadline (although there was a previous, more general extension of the discovery schedule
25
and pretrial deadlines), see Order, ECF No. 13; Order, ECF No. 16.
26
1
1
2
3
In support of this motion, the United States relies on the Memorandum of Points and
Authorities below.
Respectfully submitted this 1st day of March 2016.
4
DANIEL G. BOGDEN
United States Attorney
5
/s/ Patrick A. Rose
PATRICK A. ROSE
Assistant United States Attorney
6
7
8
9
10
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
11
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1) and Local Rule 6-1 allow a party to request
12
additional time to perform an act. In this case, the United States respectfully requests this
13
extension for the reasons set forth below.
14
Following entry of the Order granting the previously requested extension (ECF No. 16),
15
undersigned defense counsel’s time was largely devoted to preparation and trial in the matter of
16
Kornberg v. United States of America, 2:12-cv-01961-JAD-PAL, as well as post-trial briefing
17
and the preparation of proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Counsel has also
18
devoted time to duties in other cases including Rule 26(f) conferences, proposed discovery
19
schedule, preparation and service of initial disclosures, discovery requests, and written
20
authorization forms, and preparation of briefs. Counsel has had, and has in the near future,
21
several medical and dental appointments. Counsel must prepare for an upcoming hearing on four
22
motions in the matter of Carrion v. United States of America, et al., 2:13-cv-00419-RFB-NJK.
23
Additionally, a dispositive motion in the instant matter may raise the discretionary
24
function exception to the waiver of sovereign immunity in the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28
25
U.S.C. §§ 1346(b)(1), 2401(b), 2671-2680 (“FTCA”). Any motion raising such exception must
26
be reviewed and approved, prior to filing, by the Torts Branch of the Civil Division of the
2
1
Department of Justice. Given the circumstances set forth above, counsel does not expect that he
2
will be able to prepare the draft dispositive motion, determine and assemble appropriate exhibits,
3
and allow for review by the Torts Branch within the existing deadline of March 21, 2016.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
For the reasons above, the United States respectfully requests an extension of time of
thirty days, from March 21, 2016 to April 20, 2016, to file dispositive motions.
This motion is brought in good faith and not for purposes of undue delay or unfair
prejudice to Plaintiff.
Respectfully submitted this 1st day of March, 2016.
DANIEL G. BOGDEN
United States Attorney
/s/ Patrick A. Rose
PATRICK A. ROSE
Assistant United States Attorney
12
13
14
15
16
IT IS SO ORDERED:
17
18
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
19
DATED: March 1, 2016
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?