Jablonski Enterprises, LTD v. Nye County et al

Filing 22

ORDER that 18 Motion to Extend Time to Respond re 6 and 7 Motions to Dismiss is GRANTED. Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 4/6/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

Case 2:15-cv-02296-GMN-GWF Document 18 Filed 03/28/16 Page 1 of 4

1
2
3
4
5
6

LISA A. RASMUSSEN, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 007491
LAW OFFICE OF LISA RASMUSSEN, P.C.
601 South 10th Street, Suite #100
Las Vegas, NV 89101
Tel. [phone]
Fax. [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiff

7

8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

LAW OFFICE OF LISA RASMUSSEN
601 SOUTH TENTH STREET, #100
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89101
PH: [phone] · FX: [phone]

10
11
12

JABLONSKI ENTERPRISES, LTD.,
PLAINTIFF,

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

23

Case No.: 2:15-cv-2296 GMN (GWF)
MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO
FILE RESPONSE TO MOTION TO
DISMISS (ONE DAY)

VS.

NYE COUNTY, NEVADA, a corporation created
by the State of Nevada, SHEREE STRINGER,
individually and in her capacity as NYE County
Assessor; DEBBIE ORRICK, individually and in
her capacity as Mapping Administrator for Nye
County; BRIAN KUNZI, individually and as Nye
County District Attorney; MARLA ZLOTEK,
individually and as Nye County Deputy district
attorney; SUMMA, LLC, a Nevada limited
liability company; TOM LEWIS, individually and
as manager of Summa, LLC; HENRY
TONKING, individually and as manager of
Summa, LLC; LITHIUM CORPORATION, a
Nevada corporation; GREG EKINS, individually;
GIS LAND SERVICES, a Nevada corporation;
and CLAYTON P. BRUST, individually,
DEFENDANTS.

24
25
26
27

COMES NOW the Plaintiff, JABLONSKI ENTERPRISES, LTD., a Nevada
corporation, by and through its counsel, Lisa A. Rasmussen, Esq., and hereby requests a one
day extension of time to file Jablonski Enterprises, Ltd.’s Responses to Summa, Tonking,

28
1 of 4

Case 2:15-cv-02296-GMN-GWF Document 18 Filed 03/28/16 Page 2 of 4

1
2
3

Lithium and Brust’s Motions to Dismiss (docket #’s 6 and 7).
This is the first request for an extension of time and the Response was filed on today’s
date, docket #17.

4

This Motion is made and based upon the following:

5

1.

6
7

8
9
LAW OFFICE OF LISA RASMUSSEN
601 SOUTH TENTH STREET, #100
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89101
PH: [phone] · FX: [phone]

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

Brust, Lithium, Tonking and Summa filed their Motions to Dismiss on March

8, 2016. Dockets #6 and 7.
2.

The filings generated a response date of March 25, 2016.

3.

The undersigned was in trial from March 8, 2016 through March 14, 2016 in

United States v. Haischer, 2:11-cr-267 MMD.
4.

The undersigned had two appellate briefs due thereafter, one on March 16,

2016, Michael Domingues v. State, Nevada Supreme Court case number 69140, and one due
on today’s date that the undersigned still has not completed in Eliades v. Eliades, 2:15-cv1145 APG, which will require another request for extension of time for one day to complete
because the undersigned spent 10 hours today on these responses.
5.

Additionally, the undersigned was engaged most of last week in preparations

for and in a two day settlement conference in two separate cases pending before The
Honorable Robert C. Jones, McKnight v. Barkett, et al, 2:10-cv-1617 RCJ, and In Re: Asset
Resolution Company, 2:09-bk-32824 RCJ. These cases involve a long and sordid history of
events that began in 2006 with USA Commercial Mortgage’s bankruptcy filing. The
undersigned had three clients here from different parts of the country for these settlement

20

conferences which actually took place on Thursday March 24th and Friday March 25, 2016

21

before retired Judge Herb Ross from Alaska. The preparations for the conference were

22

substantial and along with the conference, consumed most of last week.

23

6.

The undersigned intended to file a request for a one week extension of time

24

last Wednesday and forgot to do so before becoming all-consumed in the great settlement

25

project. As a result, the undersigned simply prepared the Response today and is asking that

26

this Court grant a one day extension of time, nunc pro tunc.

27
28

7.

The defendants filed two separate motions, but the motions are essentially

identical. Since the Motions are made pursuant to NRS Chapter 41, et seq, they require more
2 of 4

Case 2:15-cv-02296-GMN-GWF Document 18 Filed 03/28/16 Page 3 of 4

1

than a case law analysis that would be ordinarily required under F.R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). As

2

written, they were more akin to a Motion for Summary Judgment, requiring a similar

3

response from the undersigned.

4

8.

Local Rule 6-1 permits the filing of a Motion for an Extension of Time. The

5

Rule states that the failure to file the Motion before the deadline for the Response is subject

6

to an excusable neglect standard, demonstrating that the failure to act was the result of

7

excusable neglect. The undersigned has explained above, she intended to file a motion last

8
9
LAW OFFICE OF LISA RASMUSSEN
601 SOUTH TENTH STREET, #100
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89101
PH: [phone] · FX: [phone]

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

week on Wednesday requesting a one week extension of time and simply forgot to do so
because she was consumed with the settlement conference issues in the McKnight and ARC
cases. Furthermore, the undersigned is a sole practitioner and is still getting caught up after
having been in trial less than two weeks ago. In fact responding to these motions today is
creating the need to ask for an additional extension of time in another case, with an appeal
response due to Judge Gordon also on todays’ date.
9.

As demonstrated, this request is not made for the purpose of delay and takes

into account due diligence on the part of the undersigned.
10.

If this request were denied, it would create prejudice to the Plaintiff whereas

there is no prejudice to the defendants by this request for a one day extension of time.
Additionally, the interests of justice would indicate that determining this matter on its merits
is preferable to a determination by default.
Accordingly, it is respectfully requested that the Court issue an Order granting a one

20

day extension of time, nunc pro tun, to file the Plaintiff’s Response to the two Motions to

21

Dismiss filed as docket numbers 6 and 7.

22

Respectfully submitted this 28th day of March, 2016.

23

ORDER

24
25
26
27
28

It is so ordered.
___________________________
U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

LAW OFFICE OF LISA RASMUSSEN,
/s/ Lisa A. Rasmussen
_____________________________________
LISA A. RASMUSSEN, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 7491
Attorneys for Jablonski Enterprises, Ltd.

6
April
Dated thid ___ day of _______, 2016.
3 of 4

Case 2:15-cv-02296-GMN-GWF Document 18 Filed 03/28/16 Page 4 of 4

1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2
3

I HEREBY CERTIFY that I am a person competent to serve papers and that I served

4

a copy of the foregoing MOTION FOR ONE DAY EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE

5

RESPONSE TO MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND TO TRANSFER VENUE, upon all persons

6

participating in CM/ECF, as required by local rule in this case.

7

8
9
LAW OFFICE OF LISA RASMUSSEN
601 SOUTH TENTH STREET, #100
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89101
PH: [phone] · FX: [phone]

10

Dated this 28th day of March, 2016.
/s/ Lisa A. Rasmussen
__________________________________
LISA A. RASMUSSEN, ESQ.

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

23
24
25
26
27
28
4 of 4