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)

Download PDF
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 (702) 486-3326 (phone) (702) 486-3773 (fax) Email: 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

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?