Carley v. Gentry et al

Filing 171

ORDER Granting 170 Stipulation to Continue Joint Pretrial Deadline. Proposed Joint Pretrial Order due by 6/27/2022. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach on 5/23/2022. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KF)

Case 2:17-cv-02670-MMD-VCF Document 171 Filed 05/23/22 Page 1 of 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

AARON D. FORD
Attorney General
CHRISTOPHER M. GUY (Bar No. 15239)
Deputy Attorney General
State of Nevada
Office of the Attorney General
555 East Washington Avenue
Suite 3900
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
[phone] (phone)
[phone] (fax)
Email: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendants James Dzurenda, Charles Daniels,
Sheryl Foster, Jo Gentry, Tanya Hill, Gabriela Najera,
Dwight Neven, Cynthia Ruiz, Kim Thomas, and Patrick Vejar
LISA A. RASMUSSEN, Esq.
Law Offices of Kristina Wildeveld & Associates
550 East Charleston Blvd.
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
[phone] (phone)
[phone] (fax)
Email: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiff

15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

16

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

17

ELIZABETH CARLEY,

18

Plaintiff,

19

v.

20

JO GENTRY, et al.,

21

Case No. 2:17-cv-02670-MMD-VCF
JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER
TO EXTEND THE JOINT PRETRIAL
ORDER DEADLINE FROM APRIL
25, 2022, TO MAY 25, 2022
(Second Request)

Defendants.

22

Plaintiff Elizabeth Carley, by and through counsel, Lisa. A. Rasmussen, and

23

Defendants, Sheryl Foster, Patrick Vejar, Jo Gentry, James Dzurenda, Charles Daniels,

24

Gabriela Najera, Tanya Hill, Dwight Neven, Cynthia Ruiz, and Kim Thomas, by and

25

through counsel, Aaron D. Ford, Nevada Attorney General, and Christopher M. Guy,

26

Deputy Attorney General, of the State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney General, hereby

27

submit a Joint Stipulation And Order To Extend The Joint Pretrial Order Deadline From

28

May 25, 2022, to Monday, June 27, 2022.

Page 1 of 4

Case 2:17-cv-02670-MMD-VCF Document 171 Filed 05/23/22 Page 2 of 4
1

I.

INTRODUCTION

2

The Parties hereby move to extend the Joint Pretrial Order deadline from May 25,

3

2022, to June 27, 2022 (32 days). Good cause exists in this case because the Parties have

4

resumed settlement discussions and may be able to resolve this matter without further

5

litigation. Additionally, both counsel for Plaintiff and Defendants assumed litigation

6

responsibilities for this matter post summary judgment briefing. Plaintiff’s counsel

7

appeared in this matter as recent as January 25, 2022, for the purpose of a settlement

8

conference. 1 ECF No. 163. The Parties agree that additional time is necessary to review

9

the discovery records produced in this matter to submit a Joint Pretrial Order.

10
11

II.

LAW AND ARGUMENT
A.

Law

12

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1) 2 provides:

13

(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.

14
15
16
17

FED. R. CIV. P. 6(b)(1).

18

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

19

court extensive flexibility to modify the fixed time periods found throughout the rules,

20

whether the enlargement is sought before or after the actual termination of the allotted

21

time.” Lujan v. Nat'l Wildlife Fed., 497 U.S. 871, 906 n. 7 (1990) (internal quotation marks

22

and citation omitted) (emphasis added); see also Perez-Denison v. Kaiser Found. Health

23

Plan of the Nw., 868 F. Supp. 2d 1065, 1079 (D. Or. 2012) (citing and quoting Lujan, 497

24
25
26
27
28

This settlement conference was more akin to a global settlement conference as two
of Plaintiff’s cases were at issue: the other case being 2:17-cv-02346-MMD-CLB.
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).
1

Page 2 of 4

Case 2:17-cv-02670-MMD-VCF Document 171 Filed 05/23/22 Page 3 of 4
1

U.S. at 906). Further, this rule, like all the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, is to be

2

liberally construed to effectuate the general purpose of seeing that cases (and other

3

disputed issues) are decided on the merits. Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d

4

1253, 1258 (9th Cir. 2010). Regarding “Good cause,” it is a non-rigorous standard that has

5

been construed broadly across procedural and statutory contexts. Id. (citing several circuits

6

Venegas–Hernandez v. Sonolux Records, 370 F.3d 183, 187 (1st Cir.2004); Thomas v.

7

Brennan, 961 F.2d 612, 619 (7th Cir.1992); Lolatchy v. Arthur Murray, Inc., 816 F.2d 951,

8

954 (4th Cir.1987)).

9

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

10

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

11

party seeking relief or prejudice to the adverse party.” Ahanchian, 624 F.3d at 1259

12

(quoting 4B Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure §

13

1165 (3d ed. 2004).

14

B.

15

On May 20, 2022, the Parties meet and conferred about the status of the case. The

16

Parties renewed settlement discussions as Plaintiff’s circumstances have changed now that

17

she resides in transitional housing. The Parties agreed that Plaintiff’s new circumstance

18

should be considered for settlement purposes and present new opportunities for settlement

19

that were not considered at the March 24, 2022, settlement conference. The Parties do not

20

act in bad faith.

Agreement

21

Additionally, the Parties seek additional time to work together to draft the Joint

22

Pretrial Order. The Parties are working together to determine what records were produced

23

prior to counsels’ appearances in this matter. The additional time is necessary to the

24

drafting and agreement to a joint order. Thus, the Parties request an extension of the Joint

25

Pretrial Order deadline of May 25, 2022, to June 27, 2022.

26

///

27

///

28

///

Page 3 of 4

Case 2:17-cv-02670-MMD-VCF Document 171 Filed 05/23/22 Page 4 of 4
1
2
3

III.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Parties request an extension of the Joint Pretrial

Order deadline of May 25, 2022, to June 27, 2022.

4
5
6
7
8
9
10

DATED this 20th day of May 2022

DATED this 20th day of May 2022

By: /s/ _Lisa A. Rasmussen______________
LISA A. RASMUSSEN, Esq.
Law Offices of Kristina Wildeveld &
Associates
550 E. Charleston Blvd.
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
Attorneys for Plaintiff

By: /s/ Christopher M. Guy _______
CHRISTOPHER M. GUY
Deputy Attorney General
Office of the Nevada Attorney General
555 E. Washington Avenue, #3900
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
Attorneys for Defendants

11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14
15

_______________________________________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
5-23-2022
DATE: ________________________________

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

Page 4 of 4