Crittendon v. Lombardo et al

Filing 234

ORDER Granting 230 , 231 Motions for Leave to File Excess Pages. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brenda Weksler on 2/16/2021. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MR)

Case 2:17-cv-01700-RFB-BNW Document 231 Filed 02/10/21 Page 1 of 4
234
02/16/21
3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

[phone] FAX [phone]

KIM GILBERT EBRON

7625 DEAN MARTIN DRIVE, SUITE 110
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89139

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

DIANA S. EBRON, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 10580
E-mail: [e-mail]
KAREN L. HANKS, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 9578
E-mail: [e-mail]
KIM GILBERT EBRON
7625 Dean Martin Drive, Suite 110
Las Vegas, Nevada 89139
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Joshua H. Crittendon
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
JOSHUA H. CRITTENDON,
Case No.: 2:17-cv-1700-RFB-BNW
vs.

Plaintiff,

JOE LOMBARDO, et al.,
Defendants.

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO EXCEED
PAGE LIMIT AS TO:
(1) PLAINTIFF’S REPLY TO
DEFENDANT LARRY WILLIAMSON,
M.D.’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION
TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
AMEND; AND
(2) PLAINTIFF’S REPLY TO LVMPD
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND

Plaintiff Joshua H. Crittendon, by and through his counsel of record, Diana S. Ebron, Esq.,
hereby files his Motion to Exceed Page Limit under LR 7-3. This motion is based on the
Declaration of Diana S. Ebron, Esq., the following memorandum of points and authorities, the
papers and pleading herein, any argument heard by the Court on this matter.
DECLARATION OF DIANA S. EBRON, ESQ. IN SUPPORT
OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO EXCEED PAGE LIMIT
I, Diana S. Ebron, Esq., hereby declare as follows:
1. I am an attorney with the law firm of Kim Gilbert Ebron, and am admitted to practice in

24

all courts in the State of Nevada and in this Court.

25

2. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein.

26

3. I represent Plaintiff Joshua H. Crittendon (“Crittendon”) in the above-captioned matter.

27

4. I submit this declaration in support of Plaintiff’s Motion to Exceed Page Limit.

28

5. On January 20, 2021, Crittendon filed his Motion to Amend [ECF No. 223] (“Motion”).
-1-

Case 2:17-cv-01700-RFB-BNW Document 231 Filed 02/10/21 Page 2 of 4
234
02/16/21
3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

6. On February 3, 2021, Defendant Larry Williamson filed his response in opposition to
Crittendon’s Motion [ECF No. 226] (“Williamson’s Response”).
7. Williamson’s Response is 21 pages long, and raises at least seven distinct bases for
rejecting Crittendon’s Motion.
8. On February 3, 2021, the LVMPD Defendants filed their response in opposition to
Crittendon’s Motion [ECF No. 227] (“LVMPD’s Response”).
9. LVMPD’s Response is 20 pages long, and raises at least nine distinct bases for rejecting
Crittendon’s Motion.

[phone] FAX [phone]

particularly thorough discussion. This is especially true of the futility arguments—which

11
KIM GILBERT EBRON

10. Certain issues raised in Williamson’s Response and LVMPD’s Response require

10

7625 DEAN MARTIN DRIVE, SUITE 110
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89139

9

are tantamount to a separate motions to dismiss included within each response—as well as

12

extensive procedural arguments made in both briefs.

13

11. A 15 page reply as to Williamson’s Response and to LVMPD’s Response—excluding table

14

of contents, table of authorities, certificate of service, and any exhibits—is necessary for

15

Crittendon to fully articulate his position.

16

12. This motion is made for a proper purpose and supported by good cause, as set forth above.

17

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

18

Executed this 10th day of February, 2021.

19

/s/ Diana S. Ebron
Diana S. Ebron, Esq.

20
21

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

22

On January 20, 2021, Crittendon filed his Motion to Amend [ECF No. 223] (“Motion”).

23

On February 3, 2021, Defendant Larry Williamson filed his response to Crittendon’s Motion [ECF

24

No. 226] (“Williamson’s Response”). On February 3, 2021, the LVMPD Defendants filed their

25

response to Crittendon’s Motion [ECF No. 227] (“LVMPD’s Response”). Crittendon’s replies to

26

Williamson’s Response and LVMPD’s Response are due February 10, 2021.

27

LR 7-3(a) allows 12 pages for a reply in support of a motion. Crittendon’s replies to

28

Williamson’s Response and LVMPD’s Response are each 15 pages in length. Consistent with LR
-2-

Case 2:17-cv-01700-RFB-BNW Document 231 Filed 02/10/21 Page 3 of 4
234
02/16/21
3

1

7-3(c), this Motion to Exceed Page Limit is supported by a declaration stating the reasons

2

additional pages are needed and identifying the number of total pages needed as 15 for each reply,

3

excluding table of contents, table of authorities, certificate of service, and any exhibits.

state law claims of assault and battery, and negligence and negligent hiring, retention, supervision,

7

and training. Williamson’s Response is 21 pages long, and raises at least seven distinct bases for

8

rejecting Crittendon’s Motion. LVMPD’s Response is 20 pages long, and raises at least nine

9

distinct bases for rejecting Crittendon’s Motion. Certain issues raised in Williamson’s Response

10

and LVMPD’s Response require particularly thorough discussion. This is especially true of the

11

[phone] FAX [phone]

constitutional deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, first amendment retaliation, and

6

KIM GILBERT EBRON

This case involves, inter alia, constitutional claims of excessive force, failure to protect,

5

7625 DEAN MARTIN DRIVE, SUITE 110
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89139

4

futility arguments in both briefs, which are tantamount to a separate motions to dismiss included

12

within each response, and lengthy procedural arguments made in both briefs. Crittendon’s replies

13

only narrowly exceed the page limits set forth in LR 7-3.

14

To properly articulate his position, Crittendon requires a 15 page reply brief as to

15

Williamson’s Response and LVMPD’s Response—excluding table of contents, table of

16

authorities, certificate of service, and any exhibits. The table of contents and table of authorities

17

required under LR 7-3(c) appear in both replies.
CONCLUSION

18
19
20
21
22

For the reasons set forth above, Crittendon respectfully requests that the Court grant his
Motion to Exceed Page Limit.
KIM GILBERT EBRON

Dated: February 10, 2021.
ORDER

23

IT IS SO ORDERED

24

DATED: 10:29 am, February 16, 2021

25
26
27

BRENDA WEKSLER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

28
-3-

/s/ Diana S. Ebron
DIANA S. EBRON, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 10580
KAREN L. HANKS, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 9578
7625 Dean Martin Drive, Suite 110
Las Vegas, Nevada 89139
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Joshua H. Crittendon