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)

Download PDF
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?