Johnson v. Gentry et al

Filing 202

ORDER Granting 201 Stipulation to Continue. Status Conference set for 8/2/2022 at 10:30 AM. Signed by Judge Andrew P. Gordon on 7/8/2022. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JQC)

Case 2:17-cv-01671-APG-EJY Document 201 Filed 07/06/22 Page 1 of 5

1

6

FRANK M. FLANSBURG III, ESQ., Nevada Bar No. 6974
[e-mail]
EMILY A. ELLIS, ESQ., Nevada Bar No. 11956
[e-mail]
TROY P. DOMINA, ESQ., Nevada Bar No. 13862
[e-mail]
BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK, LLP
100 North City Parkway, Suite 1600
Las Vegas, Nevada 89106
Telephone:
702.382.2101
Facsimile:
702.382.8135

7

Attorneys for Plaintiff Lausteveion Johnson

2
3
4

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

10
Attorney s at Law
100 North City Parkway, Suite 1600
Las Vegas, NV 89106

B ROWNSTEIN H YATT F ARBER S CHRECK , LLP

5

LAUSTEVEION JOHNSON,

11
12

v.

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO
CONTINUE THE STATUS
CONFERENCE SCHEDULED FOR
JULY 8, 2022

13

JAMES DZURENDA; FRANK DREESEN;
REGINA BARRETT; JOSEPH LEWIS;
TIMOTHY KNATZ; DAVID WILLIS AND
JO GENTRY,

(FIRST REQUEST)

14

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 2:17-cv-01671-APG-EJY

15
Defendants.
16
17

Plaintiff, Lausteveion Johnson (“Plaintiff”), by and through his appointed counsel, Frank

18

M. Flansburg, III, Esq., Emily A. Ellis, Esq., and Troy P. Domina, Esq., of the law firm Brownstein

19

Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP, and Defendants, James Dzurenda, Regina Barrett, David Willis, and

20

Jo Gentry (“Defendants”) by and through their counsel Aaron D. Ford, Esq., and Austin T. Barnum,

21

Esq., hereby submit this Joint Stipulation and Order to Continue the Status Conference Scheduled

22

for July 8, 2022, at 9:00 a.m.
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

23
I.

24

RELEVANT BACKGROUND

25

On May 24, 2022, this Court ordered a status conference in this matter to be held on Friday,

26

July 8, 2022 at 10:00am (the “Status Conference”) to discuss the pretrial needs of the case and

27

schedule a trial date (the “Order”).1 Counsel for plaintiff was to further confer with Plaintiff

28

1

See Minute Order, dated May 24, 2022.

24409937.1

Attorney s at Law
100 North City Parkway, Suite 1600
Las Vegas, NV 89106

B ROWNSTEIN H YATT F ARBER S CHRECK , LLP

Case 2:17-cv-01671-APG-EJY Document 201 Filed 07/06/22 Page 2 of 5

1

regarding previously proposed exhibits, witnesses, and motions in limine to help streamline pretrial

2

proceedings in the time between the Order and the Status Conference. Despite making appropriate

3

arrangements and preparation with the Nevada Department of Correction’s telephonic and

4

electronic mail service providers, counsel for Plaintiff, Frank M. Flansburg, Emily A. Ellis, and

5

Troy P. Domina had difficulties communicating with Plaintiff, Lausteveion Johnson, in the

6

Northern Nevada Correctional Center in Carson City, Nevada. With assistance from Mr. Austin

7

Barnum at the Attorney General’s office, Plaintiff’s counsel was able to resolve the issue and

8

establish communication on June 23, 2022.

9

Since that time, Plaintiff’s counsel and Plaintiff have worked diligently to prepare for the

10

Status Conference, but were unable to complete discussions regarding all of the topics and issues

11

necessary to participate in the Status Conference due to the delay in establishing communication.

12

As a result, the Parties conferred and request the Status Conference be continued to enable Plaintiff

13

and his counsel to complete their preparation, confer with Defendants’ counsel, and report back to

14

the Court at a conference.

15

Plaintiff’s counsel and Senior Deputy Attorney General Austin Barnum held a meet and

16

confer via teleconference concerning this extension on July 5, 2022. Mr. Barnum expressed no

17

objection and agreed to providing more time for Plaintiff and counsel to prepare.

18

II.

19

LEGAL DISCUSSION
A.

20

EXTENDING TIME.

(1) In General. When an act may or must be done within a specified time, the
court may, for good cause, extend the time:
(A) with or without motion or notice if the court acts, or if a request
is made, before the original time or its extension expires; or
(B) on motion made after the time has expired if the party failed to act
because of excusable neglect.

21
22
23
24

Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b)(1).2

25
26
27
28

2

LR IA 6-1(a): “A motion or stipulation to extend time must state the reasons for the
extension requested and must inform the court of all previous extensions of the subject deadline the
court granted.” Further, a “stipulation or motion seeking to extend the time to file an opposition or
reply to a motion, or to extend the time fixed for hearing a motion, must state in its opening
paragraph the filing date of the subject motion or the date of the subject hearing.” LR IA 6-1(c).
24409937.1
-2-

Attorney s at Law
100 North City Parkway, Suite 1600
Las Vegas, NV 89106

B ROWNSTEIN H YATT F ARBER S CHRECK , LLP

Case 2:17-cv-01671-APG-EJY Document 201 Filed 07/06/22 Page 3 of 5

1

The United States Supreme Court has recognized, “Rule 6(b) gives the court extensive

2

flexibility to modify the fixed time periods found throughout the rules, whether the enlargement is

3

sought before or after the actual termination of the allotted time.” Lujan v. Nat'l Wildlife Fed., 497

4

U.S. 871, 906 n. 7 (1990) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) (emphasis added); see

5

also Perez-Denison v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan of the Nw., 868 F. Supp. 2d 1065, 1079 (D. Or.

6

2012) (citing and quoting Lujan, 497 U.S. at 906). Further, this rule, like all the Federal Rules of

7

Civil Procedure is to be liberally construed to effectuate the general purpose of seeing that cases

8

are tried on the merits. Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1258 (9th Cir. 2010).

9

Regarding “good cause,” it is a non-rigorous standard that has been construed broadly across

10

procedural and statutory contexts. Id. (citing several circuits Venegas–Hernandez v. Sonolux

11

Records, 370 F.3d 183, 187 (1st Cir.2004); Thomas v. Brennan, 961 F.2d 612, 619 (7th Cir.1992);

12

Lolatchy v. Arthur Murray, Inc., 816 F.2d 951, 954 (4th Cir.1987)).

13

Consequently, requests for extensions of time made before the applicable deadline has

14

passed should “normally ... be granted in the absence of bad faith on the part of the party seeking

15

relief or prejudice to the adverse party.” Ahanchian, 624 F.3d at 1259 (quoting 4B Charles Alan

16

Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1165 (3d ed. 2004).

17

Based on the foregoing, the Parties hereby stipulate and request the Court grant a two-week

18

continuance to July 22, 2022, or a date at the Court’s convenience, for the Status Conference to

19

enable Plaintiff and his counsel to complete their preparation and confer with Defendants’ counsel

20

before reporting to the Court.

21

///

22

///

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

27
28
24409937.1

-3-

Case 2:17-cv-01671-APG-EJY Document 201 Filed 07/06/22 Page 4 of 5

1

CONCLUSION

2

For the reasons stated above, the Parties hereby stipulate and respectfully request the Court

3

continue the Status Conference for a period of two weeks, to July 22, 2022, or to a date at the

4

Court’s convenience.

5

DATED this 6th day of July, 2022

DATED this 6th day of July, 2022

6

BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK, LLP
BY: /s/ Emily A. Ellis
FRANK M. FLANSBURG III, ESQ.,
EMILY A. ELLIS, ESQ.,
TROY P. DOMINA, ESQ.,

STATE OF NEVADA OFFICE OF
ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: _/s/ Austin T. Barnum
AARON D. FORD, Attorney General
AUSTIN T. BARNUM
Deputy Attorney General

7
8
9

Attorneys for Plaintiff Lausteveion Johnson
Attorneys for Defendants Regina
Barrett, Frank Dreesen, James
Dzurenda, Timothy Knatz, Joseph
Lewis, and David Willis

10
Attorney s at Law
100 North City Parkway, Suite 1600
Las Vegas, NV 89106

B ROWNSTEIN H YATT F ARBER S CHRECK , LLP

III.

11
12

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the

13

foregoing stipulation is approved and the Status Conference currently scheduled for

14

August 2, 2022
10:30
a.m.
July 8, 2022, at 9:00 a.m. is VACATED and rescheduled for _________,
2022,atat
______.

15
IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
17

_______________________________________
UNITED
STATESDISTRICT
MAGISTRATE
JUDGE
UNITED STATES
JUDGE
July 8, 2022
DATE: ________________________________

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
24409937.1

-4-

Case 2:17-cv-01671-APG-EJY Document 201 Filed 07/06/22 Page 5 of 5

1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5(b), and Section IV of the District of Nevada

3

Electronic Filing Procedures, I hereby certify that I am an employee of Brownstein Hyatt Farber

4

Schreck, LLP and that on the 6th day of July, 2022, I caused to be served a true and correct copy

5

of STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE THE STATUS CONFERENCE

6

SCHEDULED FOR JULY 8, 2022 (FIRST REQUEST), via electronic service through the

7

Court’s CM/ECF Filing System, to all parties and counsel as identified on the court-generated

8

Notice of Electronic Filing.

10
Attorney s at Law
100 North City Parkway, Suite 1600
Las Vegas, NV 89106

B ROWNSTEIN H YATT F ARBER S CHRECK , LLP

9
/s/ Paula Kay
an employee of Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
24409937.1

-5-