LHF Productions, Inc. v. Does

Filing 149

ORDER Granting 148 Stipulation to Extend Time Re: 146 Motion to Withdraw Constructive Admissions. Replies due by 6/8/2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 6/6/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

Download PDF
Case 2:16-cv-02028-JAD-NJK Document 148 Filed 06/05/18 Page 1 of 7 1 2 3 4 F. Christopher Austin, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 6559 caustin@weidemiller.com WEIDE & MILLER, LTD. 10655 Park Run Drive, Suite 100 Las Vegas, NV 89144 Tel: (702) 382-4804 Fax: (702) 382-4805 5 Attorneys for Plaintiff LHF Productions, Inc. 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 8 9 LHF PRODUCTIONS, INC., a Nevada Corporation, 10 Plaintiff, vs. 11 12 13 14 MARIA GONZALEZ, an individual; BRIAN KABALA, an individual; JOHN KOEHLY, an individual; DANIEL O'CONNELL, an individual; DONALD PLAIN, an individual; ANTE SODA, an individual; MATTHEW STEWART, an individual; and JOHN AND JANE DOES. Case No.: 2:16-cv-02028-JAD-NJK STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE REPLY IN SUPPORT OF COUNTER-DEFENDANT’S RENEWED MOTION TO WITHDRAW CONSTRUCTIVE ADMISSIONS (First Request) 15 16 Defendants ___________________________________ 17 BRIAN KABALA, an individual; Counter-Plaintiff, 18 19 vs. 20 LHF PRODUCTIONS, INC., a Nevada Corporation, 21 Counter-Defendant, 22 23 24 Plaintiff BRIAN KABALA (“Counter-Plaintiff” or “Kabala”), by and through their undersigned 26 counsel, stipulate to a three-day extension for LHF to file its Reply (“Reply”) to Kabala’s 27 10655 PARK RUN DR., SUITE 100 LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89144 (702) 382-4804 PRODUCTIONS, INC. (hereafter referred to as “Counter-Defendant” or “LHF”), and Counter- 25 W EIDE & MILLER, LTD. Pursuant to Local Rule IA 6-1(a) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b)(1)(A), Counter-Defendant, LHF Opposition (ECF 147) to LHF’s Renewed Motion to Withdraw Constructive Admissions (ECF 28 146) from June 5, 2018, to June 8, 2018. This is the first request for such an extension. FCA-W-0712 1 Case 2:16-cv-02028-JAD-NJK Document 148 Filed 06/05/18 Page 2 of 7 1 LR IA 6-1 and Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b)(1)(A) provide that stipulations to extend time may be 2 granted upon a showing of good cause when brought prior to the expiration of the relevant 3 deadline. “’Good cause’ is a non-rigorous standard that has been construed broadly across 4 procedural and statutory contexts.” Id. citing Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 5 1259 (9th Cir. 2010) (discussing “good cause” in the context of Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)). It 6 generally involves a case-by-case assessment of whether there is some good reason for the delay 7 or requested extension in the absence of bad faith and prejudice to the non-moving party. See id. 8 at 1109-1110. Generally, there is good cause to extend time to permit a party to discuss factual 9 or procedural matters with its counsel that may be relevant to the pending brief or to provide 10 adequate time under the circumstances to permit a party to fairly respond to the legal issues raised 11 in the preceding brief. 12 13 for LHF when the facts and circumstances arose giving rise to the Renewed Motion to Withdraw 15 (ECF 147). As such, he must consult with his client and counsel of record at the time to be 16 appraised of factual and procedural matters raised in the Opposition. (Austin Decl. at ¶3.) As of 17 the time of bringing this filing he had not yet been able to fully confer on these matters due to 18 scheduling conflicts and his own workload, including the necessity of briefing and filing an 19 opposition to a motion in an unrelated matter yesterday, June 4, 2018. Id. at ¶4. Thus, absent the 20 brief extension requested, to which counsel for Counter-Plaintiff have graciously stipulated, LHF 21 would not be able to fairly respond to the Opposition filed in this matter. Id. at ¶5. 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 10655 PARK RUN DR., SUITE 100 LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89144 (702) 382-4804 1, these are precisely the reasons for the requested brief extension. Mr. Austin was not counsel 14 W EIDE & MILLER, LTD. As set forth in the Declaration of Mr. Austin, counsel for LHF, attached hereto as Exhibit /// 28 /// FCA-W-0712 2 Case 2:16-cv-02028-JAD-NJK Document 148 Filed 06/05/18 Page 3 of 7 1 As seeking a brief extension to confer with counsel and to secure adequate time to fairly 2 respond constitute good cause for the requested extension, and as Counter-Plaintiffs have 3 stipulated to the same and will not, therefore, be prejudiced by the requested extension, this 4 stipulation should be granted. 5 DATED this 5th day of June 2018. 6 7 8 9 10 By: /S/ F. Christopher Austin F. Christopher Austin, Esq. caustin@weidemiller.com WEIDE & MILLER, LTD. 10655 Park Run Drive, Suite 100 Las Vegas, NV 89144 Attorney for Counter-Defendant Productions, Inc. By: /S/ Jonathan Blum Jonathan D. Blum, Esq. jblum@klnevada.com KOLESAR & LEATHAM 400 South Rampart Blvd, Suite 400 Las Vegas, NV 89145 LHF 12 Lisa L. Clay, Esq. (Pro Hac Vice) lclayaal@gmail.com 345 North Canal Street Suite C202 Chicago, IL 60606-1333 13 Attorney for Counter-Plaintiff Brian Kabala 11 14 ORDER 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED 17 June 2018 Dated this 6, day of , 20 . 18 19 DISTRICT COURT JUDGE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 W EIDE & MILLER, LTD. 10655 PARK RUN DR., SUITE 100 LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89144 (702) 382-4804 28 FCA-W-0712 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?