Kraja v. Bellagio, LLC et al

Filing 118

ORDER Granting 116 Motion to Extend Time for briefing deadlines. Responses for 115 and 116 Motions due by 3/3/2017, Replies due by 3/7/2017; Responses for 112 and 113 Motions due by 3/17/2017, Replies due by 3/24/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 2/24/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JM)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 10 ANDI KRAJA, 11 Plaintiff, 12 vs. 13 BELLAGIO, LLC, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 2:15-cv-01983-APG-NJK ORDER (Docket Nos. 115, 116, 117) 16 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to strike Defendants’ motions at Docket Nos. 112 17 and 113, filed on an emergency basis. Docket No. 115. Also pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s 18 motion to reopen discovery and motion for extension of briefing deadlines, filed on an emergency basis. 19 Docket Nos. 116, 117. 20 “The filing of emergency motions is disfavored because of the numerous problems they create 21 for the opposing party and the court resolving them.” Cardoza v. Bloomin’ Brands, Inc., 141 F. Supp. 22 3d 1137, 1140 (D. Nev. 2015) (citing In re Intermagnetics America, Inc., 101 B.R. 191, 193-194 (C.D. 23 Cal. 1989)). “Safeguards that have evolved over many decades are built into the Federal Rules of Civil 24 Procedure and the Local Rules of this court.” Mission Power Eng’g Co. v. Continental Cas. Co., 883 25 F. Supp. 488, 491 (C.D. Cal. 1995). A request to bypass the default procedures through the filing of an 26 emergency motion impedes the adversarial process, disrupts the schedules of the Court and opposing 27 counsel, and creates an opportunity for bad faith gamesmanship. Cardoza, 141 F. Supp. 3d at 1140-41. 28 1 As a result, the Court allows motions to proceed on an emergency basis in only very limited 2 circumstances. See, e.g., Local Rule 7-4(b) (“Emergency motions should be rare”). 3 Emergency motions must as a threshold matter meet several technical requirements outlined in 4 the local rules. First, the face of the motion itself must be entitled an “Emergency Motion” so the Court 5 has prompt notice that expedited relief is being requested. Local Rule 7-4(a). Second, the emergency 6 motion must be accompanied by an affidavit providing several key facts necessary for the Court to 7 determine whether, in fact, an emergency exists and allowing the Court to provide the fairest, most 8 efficient resolution. Id. This affidavit must include a detailed description of the nature of the 9 emergency. See id. The affidavit must also provide the contact information (telephone number and 10 office addresses) of the movant and all other affected parties. See id. The affidavit must also provide 11 a certification that, despite personal consultation and sincere effort to do so, the movant was unable to 12 resolve the matter without court action. See, e.g., Local Rule 7-4(a)(3). If the circumstances are such 13 that personal consultation is truly not possible, the movant must provide a detailed explanation why that 14 is the case so the Court can evaluate whether to exercise its discretion to decide the motion despite the 15 lack of a proper pre-filing conference. See id. Similarly, if no notice whatsoever was provided to the 16 opposing party regarding the filing of the motion, the affidavit must include a detailed explanation of 17 why it was not practicable to provide that notice. See id. Concurrently with the filing of an emergency 18 motion, or promptly thereafter, the movant must inform the courtroom administrators of the assigned 19 judges that the motion was filed. Local Rule 7-4(d). 20 If these technical requirements are not met, the emergency motion may be denied. Local Rule 21 7-4(b). If these technical requirements are met, the Court will turn to the substantive requirements for 22 filing an emergency motion. When a party files a motion on an emergency basis, it is within the sole 23 discretion of the Court to determine whether any such matter is, in fact, an emergency. Local Rule 7- 24 4(c). Generally speaking, an emergency motion is properly presented to the Court only when the movant 25 has shown (1) that it will be irreparably prejudiced if the Court resolves the motion pursuant to the 26 normal briefing schedule and (2) that the movant is without fault in creating the crisis that requires 27 emergency relief or, at the very least, that the crisis occurred because of excusable neglect. Cardoza, 28 141 F. Supp. 3d at 1142 (citing Mission Power, 883 F. Supp. at 492). If there is no irreparable prejudice, 2 1 sufficient justification for bypassing the default briefing schedule does not exist and the motion may be 2 properly decided on a non-expedited basis. Cardoza, 141 F. Supp. 3d at 1142-43. If there is irreparable 3 prejudice but the movant created the crisis, the Court may simply deny the relief sought. Id. at 1143. 4 The relevant inquiry is not whether the opposing party was at fault with respect to the underlying 5 dispute, but rather “it is the creation of the crisis–the necessity for bypassing regular motion 6 procedures–that requires explanation.” Mission Power, 883 F. Supp. at 493. For example, when an 7 attorney knows of the existence of a dispute and unreasonably delays in bringing that dispute to the 8 Court’s attention until the eleventh hour, the attorney has created the emergency situation and the request 9 for relief may be denied outright. See Cardoza, 141 F. Supp. 3d at 1143 (collecting cases). Quite 10 simply, emergency motions “are not intended to save the day for parties who have failed to present 11 requests when they should have.” Intermagnetics America, 101 B.R. at 193; see also Local Rule 7-4(b) 12 (“[The] failure to effectively manage deadlines, discovery, trial, or any other aspect of litigation does 13 not constitute an emergency”). 14 15 The Court declines to grant emergency treatment to these motions, but will expedite briefing. Accordingly, 16 IT IS ORDERED that a response shall be filed to the motions at Docket Nos. 115 and 116 no 17 later than March 3, 2017. Any reply to the responses to those motions shall be filed no later than March 18 7, 2017. 19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for extension of briefing deadlines is 20 GRANTED. Plaintiff’s response to Defendants’ motions at Docket Nos. 112 and 113 shall be filed no 21 later than March 17, 2017. Any reply to Plaintiff’s response shall be filed no later than March 24, 2017. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 DATED: February 24, 2017. 24 25 ______________________________________ NANCY J. KOPPE United States Magistrate Judge 26 27 28 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?