Villaverde v. Aranas et al

Filing 111

ORDER Granting 110 Stipulation for Extension of Time. Proposed Joint Pretrial Order due by 8/30/2022. Signed by Magistrate Judge Elayna J. Youchah on 7/29/2022. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JQC)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

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
Dr. Gregory Bryan and Dr. Romeo Aranas

9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

11

SALLY VILLAVERDE,

12

Case No. 2:18-cv-00921-GMN-EJY

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

ROMEO ARANAS, et al.,

15

Defendants.

JOINT STIPULATION TO EXTEND
TIME TO FILE THE JOINT PRETRIAL
ORDER
[THIRD REQUEST]

16

Pursuant to Local Rule IA 6-1 and 26-3, Dr. Gregory Bryan and Dr. Romeo Aranas, by and

17

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

18

General, and Plaintiff Sally Villaverde, by and through his counsel Erica C. Medley, Esq. hereby

19

respectfully submit the following Joint Stipulation to Extend Time to File the Joint Pretrial Order for

20

thirty (30) days to August 30, 2022.

21
22

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
I.

INTRODUCTION

23

The Parties settled this mater. This Court granted the Parties a 30-day extension of the Joint

24

Pretrial Order deadline shortly after the Parties reached their settlement, which moved the deadline to

25

July 30, 2022. See ECF No. 106. The Parties are currently performing necessary terms that will allow

26

them to file a stipulation of dismissal and proposed order. An extension of time of the Joint Pretrial Order

27

is warranted in order to provide the Parties the additional time required to file the Stipulation of Dismissal

28

And Proposed Order to Dismiss.

Page 1 of 4

1
2

II.

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

3

(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.

4
5
6
7

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

8

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

9

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

10

before or after the actual termination of the allotted time.” Lujan v. Nat'l Wildlife Fed., 497 U.S. 871, 906

11

n. 7 (1990) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) (emphasis added); see also Perez-Denison v.

12

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

13

Lujan, 497 U.S. at 906). Further, this rule, like all the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is to be liberally

14

construed to effectuate the general purpose of seeing that cases (and other disputed issues) are decided

15

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

16

cause,” it is a non-rigorous standard that has been construed broadly across procedural and statutory

17

contexts. Id. (citing several circuits Venegas–Hernandez v. Sonolux Records, 370 F.3d 183, 187 (1st

18

Cir.2004); Thomas v. Brennan, 961 F.2d 612, 619 (7th Cir.1992); Lolatchy v. Arthur Murray, Inc., 816

19

F.2d 951, 954 (4th Cir.1987)).

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24
25
26
27
28

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

1

III.

ARGUMENT

2

The Parties held a meet and confer on July 28, 2022, and discussed the additional time required

3

in order to submit the Stipulation of Dismissal And Proposed Order. The Parties agree that an additional

4

30 days should be sufficient time to file the Stipulation of Dismissal And Proposed Order.

5

The Parties have diligently worked to complete the necessary terms of the settlement in order to

6

file the Stipulation of Dismissal And Proposed Order. However, the Parties require an additional 30-day

7

extension of the Joint Pretrial Order deadline. This extension is not made in bad faith and will not

8

prejudice either party. Additionally, this request is made before expiration of the July 30, 2022, deadline.

9

Thus, they Parties need merely show good cause.

10

The United States Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit have indicated that good cause should

11

normally be found when a motion to extend is timely filed. Lujan, 497 U.S. at 906 n. 7; Ahanchian, 624

12

F.3d at 1253. Indeed, that good cause should be liberally found is well established throughout the Circuits.

13

See Venegas–Hernandez, 370 F.3d at 187; Brennan, 961 F.2d at 619; Arthur Murray, 816 F.2d at 954.

14

Synthesizing the precedent to liberally find good cause, a leading treatise similarly suggests that district

15

courts should normally grant extension requests, made before the deadline, in the absence of bad faith by

16

the requesting party or prejudice to another party. 4B Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Adam N.

17

Steinman, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1165, at 605–08 (2015).

18

Here, neither side is prejudiced by the additional time required. Good cause exists because the

19

Parties are working diligently together to finalize this matter. An additional 30 days will provide the

20

Parties sufficient time necessary to file the Stipulation of Dismissal And Proposed Order.

21
22
23
24
25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///

Page 3 of 4

1

IV.

CONCLUSION

2

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b), the Parties submit this extension of time. The Parties agree that

3

this extension is not submitted in bad faith, and that neither Party will be prejudiced by the new August

4

30, 2022 deadline. Further, the Parties agree that the resolution of this matter constitutes good cause for

5

this Court to grant the Parties extension request.

6
7

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED BY AND BETWEEN THE PARTIES that the
deadline to file the Joint Pretrial Order be continued to August 30, 2022.

8
9

DATED July 28, 2022.

10

AARON D. FORD
Attorney General

11
12
13
14

DATED July 28, 2022.

_/s/_Erica C. Medley_________________
Erica C. Medley Bar No. 13959
9555 Hillwood Drive, 2nd FL
Las Vegas, NV 89134
Attorney for Plaintiff

/s/ Christopher M. Guy
Christopher M. Guy, Bar No. 15239
555 E. Washington Ave., Ste. 3900
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
Attorneys for Defendants

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

ORDER
The Court, having reviewed the preceding Stipulation and Good Cause Appearing, HEREBY
ORDERS that the deadline to file the Joint Pretrial Order be continued to August 30, 2022.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 29th day of July 2022.

_____________________________________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

26
27
28

Page 4 of 4