Tamares Las Vegas Properties, LLC et al v. Travelers Indemnity Company

Filing 28

ORDER re Plaintiffs' 26 Emergency MOTION to Amend. The Court finds the pending motion shall be briefed based on the default timetable in the Court's Local Rules and will be resolved in the ordinary course. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 10/11/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
9
10

TAMARES LAS VEGAS PROPERTIES, et al.,

11
Plaintiff(s),
12
vs.
13
THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY,
14
Defendant(s).
15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:16-cv-002933-JAD-NJK
ORDER
(Docket No. 26)

16

Pending before the Court is a motion to amend scheduling order filed by Plaintiffs on an

17

emergency basis. Docket No. 26. “The filing of emergency motions is disfavored because of the

18

numerous problems they create for the opposing party and the court resolving them.” Cardoza v.

19

Bloomin’ Brands, Inc., 141 F. Supp. 3d 1137, 1140 (D. Nev. 2015) (citing In re Intermagnetics America,

20

Inc., 101 B.R. 191, 193-194 (C.D. Cal. 1989)). “Safeguards that have evolved over many decades are

21

built into the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of this court.” Mission Power Eng’g

22

Co. v. Continental Cas. Co., 883 F. Supp. 488, 491 (C.D. Cal. 1995). A request to bypass the default

23

procedures through the filing of an emergency motion impedes the adversarial process, disrupts the

24

schedules of the Court and opposing counsel, and creates an opportunity for bad faith gamesmanship.

25

Cardoza, 141 F. Supp. 3d at 1140-41. As a result, the Court allows motions to proceed on an emergency

26

basis in only very limited circumstances. See, e.g., Local Rule 7-4(b) (“Emergency motions should be

27

rare”).

28

1

Emergency motions must as a threshold matter meet several technical requirements outlined in
See, e.g., Local Rule 26-7(d) (emergency discovery motions must satisfy the

2

the local rules.

3

requirements outlined in Local Rule 7-4). First, the face of the motion itself must be entitled an

4

“Emergency Motion” so the Court has prompt notice that expedited relief is being requested. Local Rule

5

7-4(a). Second, the emergency motion must be accompanied by an affidavit providing several key facts

6

necessary for the Court to determine whether, in fact, an emergency exists and allowing the Court to

7

provide the fairest, most efficient resolution. Id. This affidavit must include a detailed description of

8

the nature of the emergency. See id. The affidavit must also provide the contact information (telephone

9

number and office addresses) of the movant and all other affected parties. See id. The affidavit must

10

also provide a certification that, despite personal consultation and sincere effort to do so, the movant was

11

unable to resolve the matter without court action. See, e.g., Local Rule 7-4(a)(3). If the circumstances

12

are such that personal consultation is truly not possible, the movant must provide a detailed explanation

13

why that is the case so the Court can evaluate whether to exercise its discretion to decide the motion

14

despite the lack of a proper pre-filing conference. See id. Similarly, if no notice whatsoever was

15

provided to the opposing party regarding the filing of the motion, the affidavit must include a detailed

16

explanation of why it was not practicable to provide that notice. See id. Concurrently with the filing

17

of an emergency motion, or promptly thereafter, the movant must inform the courtroom administrators

18

of the assigned judges that the motion was filed. Local Rule 7-4(d).

19

If these technical requirements are not met, the emergency motion may be denied. Local Rule

20

7-4(b). If these technical requirements are met, the Court will turn to the substantive requirements for

21

filing an emergency motion. When a party files a motion on an emergency basis, it is within the sole

22

discretion of the Court to determine whether any such matter is, in fact, an emergency. See Local Rule

23

7-4(c). Generally speaking, an emergency motion is properly presented to the Court only when the

24

movant has shown (1) that it will be irreparably prejudiced if the Court resolves the motion pursuant to

25

the normal briefing schedule; and (2) that the movant is without fault in creating the crisis that requires

26

emergency relief or, at the very least, that the crisis occurred because of excusable neglect. Cardoza,

27

141 F. Supp. 3d at 1142 (citing Mission Power, 883 F. Supp. at 492). If there is no irreparable prejudice,

28

sufficient justification for bypassing the default briefing schedule does not exist and the motion may be
2

1

properly decided on a non-expedited basis. Cardoza, 141 F. Supp. 3d at 1142-43. If there is irreparable

2

prejudice but the movant created the crisis, the Court may simply deny the relief sought. Id. at 1143.

3

The relevant inquiry is not whether the opposing party was at fault with respect to the underlying

4

dispute, but rather “it is the creation of the crisis–the necessity for bypassing regular motion

5

procedures–that requires explanation.” Mission Power, 883 F. Supp. at 493. For example, when an

6

attorney knows of the existence of a dispute and unreasonably delays in bringing that dispute to the

7

Court’s attention until the eleventh hour, the attorney has created the emergency situation and the request

8

for relief may be denied outright. See Cardoza, 141 F. Supp. 3d at 1143 (collecting cases). Quite

9

simply, emergency motions “are not intended to save the day for parties who have failed to present

10

requests when they should have.” Intermagnetics America, 101 B.R. at 193; see also Local Rule 7-4(b)

11

(“[The] failure to effectively manage deadlines, discovery, trial, or any other aspect of litigation does

12

not constitute an emergency”).

13

In this instance, Plaintiffs have met neither of the substantive requirements for an emergency

14

motion. The reason provided for filing the motion on an emergency basis is that the deadline for

15

Plaintiffs to disclose their experts was not extended in the stipulation to extend discovery deadlines and,

16

therefore, remains September 5, 2017, the date set in the initial scheduling order. Docket Nos. 26 at 4,

17

14 at 3. Plaintiffs’ counsel submits that, on September 15, 2017, she became aware that the stipulation

18

to extend discovery deadlines did not include a deadline for Plaintiffs to disclose their experts; this

19

discovery is one week after the Court granted the stipulation; nine days after Plaintiffs saw the

20

stipulation for a second time to add a signature; and fifteen days after Defendant sent Plaintiffs a draft

21

of the stipulation to review before filing it with the Court.1 Docket No. 26 at 5-7.2 Plaintiffs’ counsel

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Plaintiffs’ counsel admits that, though she saw the exact stipulation prior to its filing, she “did
not review all of the dates as carefully as [she] should have....” Docket No. 26 at 5.
2

Plaintiffs’ counsel is advised that the undersigned’s law clerk did not offer a “simple solution”
to counsel but merely advised her to file any appropriate motions on the docket if she needed to amend
the scheduling order. Docket No. 26 at 6. Further, counsel is advised for the third time that Local Rule
IA 7-2 forbids a party or attorney from making an ex parte communication by calling chambers,
especially to ask for guidance on filing a motion on the docket or timing of a judge’s order. If a party
seeks relief from the Court, that party may file the appropriate motion on the docket. Any further
3

1

waited three weeks from discovering the issue to file this emergency motion.3 Docket No. 26.

2

Moreover, Plaintiffs’ counsel provides no explanation why the pending motion was filed ten days after

3

Defendant’s counsel stated he would not stipulate to additional time for expert disclosure. Id. at 7. The

4

Court finds that, although Plaintiffs did not create the underlying issue of the omitted expert disclosure

5

deadline in the stipulation, their omission in discovering the issue is not excusable neglect and they are

6

not without fault in creating the crisis.

7

Moreover, there is no irreparable harm identified. Plaintiffs cite reasons why they would suffer

8

irreparable harm if they were unable to disclosure their expert witnesses but do not cite reasons why they

9

“will be irreparably prejudiced unless the motion is heard on an expedited basis.” Cardoza, 141 F. Supp.

10

3d at 1142; see also Docket No. 26.

11
12

For the reasons outlined above, the Court finds the pending motion shall be briefed based on the
default timetable in the Court’s Local Rules and will be resolved in the ordinary course.

13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14

DATED: October 11, 2017

15

______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

attempts by Plaintiffs’ counsel to call chambers ex parte may result in sanctions.
3

The Court does not find that this three-week time period equates to Plaintiffs’ submission that
they “immediately sought to amend the Scheduling Order upon learning of Defendant’s counsel’s
omission of a new date for Plaintiffs’ expert disclosure deadline....” Docket No. 26 at 14.
4