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)

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
[e-mail]
WEIDE & MILLER, LTD.
10655 Park Run Drive, Suite 100
Las Vegas, NV 89144
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

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
[phone]

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
[phone]

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.
[e-mail]
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.
[e-mail]
KOLESAR & LEATHAM
400 South Rampart Blvd, Suite 400
Las Vegas, NV 89145
LHF

12

Lisa L. Clay, Esq. (Pro Hac Vice)
[e-mail]
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
[phone]

28
FCA-W-0712

3