Luger v. United States of America

Filing 46

ORDER Granting in part and Denying in part Defendant United States of America's 42 Motion to Extend Time for Dispositive Motion and Joint Pretrial Order. The parties shall file their Proposed Joint Pretrial Order by 8/16/2019. Signed by Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr on 7/18/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 *** 7 TIMOTHY LUGER, Case No. 2:17-cv-02839-GMN-GWF 8 9 10 Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. 11 12 ORDER This matter is before the Court on the Defendant United States of America’s Motion to 13 Extend Time for Dispositive Motion and Joint Pretrial Order (ECF No. 42), filed on July 12, 14 2019. Plaintiff filed his Response (ECF No. 44) on July 12, 2019 and Defendant filed its Reply 15 (ECF No. 45) on July 15, 2019. 16 This matter arises from allegations of negligence/medical malpractice for the care 17 received by Plaintiff at Loma Linda VAMC. See Complaint (ECF No. 1). On February 6, 2019, 18 the Court granted the parties’ stipulation to extend discovery deadlines. ECF No. 28. The 19 discovery cutoff deadline was extended until March 30, 2019 and the dispositive motion deadline 20 was extended until April 30, 2019. Defendant requests that the Court re-open and extend the 21 dispositive motion deadline to August 16, 2019 or, in the alternative, to extend the joint pretrial 22 order deadline to August 16, 2019. Defendant states that it failed to file its request for extension 23 because of the backup of work that occurred due to the government shutdown and the 33% 24 deficit in staffing at the U.S. Attorney’s Office. It argues that Plaintiff supplemented medical 25 record disclosures and that a dispositive motion would condense damage issues at trial. Plaintiff 26 argues that any further delay will prejudice Plaintiff. 27 A request made after the expiration of a deadline will not be granted unless the movant 28 demonstrates that the failure to file the motion before the deadline expired was the result of 1 1 excusable neglect. Local Rules IA 6-1. In evaluating excusable neglect, the court considers the 2 following factors: “(1) the danger of prejudice to the opposing party; (2) the length of the delay 3 and its potential impact on the proceedings; (3) the reason for the delay; and (4) whether the 4 movant acted in good faith.” Bateman v. U.S. Postal Service, 231 F.3d 1220, 23–24 (9th Cir. 5 2000) (citing Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs., 507 U.S. 380, 395 (1993)). The Court 6 finds that Defendant has failed to demonstrate excusable neglect and the Court, therefore, denies 7 its request to re-open and extend the dispositive motion deadline. The Court, however, grants 8 Defendant’s request to extend the joint pretrial order deadline to August 16, 2019. Accordingly, 9 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Defendant United States of America’s Motion to 10 Extend Time for Dispositive Motion and Joint Pretrial Order (ECF No. 42) is granted, in part, and 11 denied, in part according to the provisions herein. 12 13 14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties’ shall file their joint pretrial order no later than August 16, 2019. DATED this 18th day of July, 2019. 15 16 17 ______________________________________ GEORGE FOLEY, JR. United States Magistrate Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?