Oshiro v. Bachman

Filing 52

ORDER granting 51 Stipulation TO EXTEND TIME FOR PLAINTIFF PERRY BRIAN OSHIRO TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. The parties thus stipulate that Oshiro may have 30 days from the entry of the order approving this stipulation to file a response to the summary-judgment motion. Responses due by 3/5/2024. Signed by Judge Andrew P. Gordon on 2/5/2024. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - CAH)

1 Jon T. Pearson
Nevada Bar No. 10182
2 Caitlan J. McMasters
Nevada Bar No. 16585
3 Holland & Hart LLP
9555 Hillwood Drive, 2nd Floor
4 Las Vegas, Nevada 89134
[phone]
5 [phone] fax
[e-mail]
6 [e-mail]
7 Counsel for Perry Brian Oshiro
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

10 PERRY BRIAN OSHIRO,

Plaintiff,

11

LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89134

HOLLAND & HART LLP

9555 HILLWOOD DRIVE, 2ND FLOOR

12 v.
13 M. BACHMAN,

Defendant.

14
15
16

Case No.: 2:22-cv-2100-APG-BNW
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND TIME
FOR PLAINTIFF PERRY BRIAN OSHIRO TO
RESPOND TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Related to ECF No. 46
(First Request)

In accordance with Rule IA 6–1 of the Local Rules of Civil Practice for the United States

17 District Court for the District of Nevada and Rule 6(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
18 Plaintiff Perry Brian Oshiro and Defendant Marissa Bachman, through their respective counsel,
19 stipulate and agree as follows:
20

1.

On June 14, 2023, this Court entered an order granting Oshiro’s motion for

21 appointment of counsel (ECF No. 23).
22

2.

On December 6, 2023, Bachman moved for summary judgment (ECF No. 46).

23

3.

Oshiro’s response to the summary-judgment motion was due on December 27,

24 2023. See LR 7–2(b).
25

4.

On January 3, 2024, counsel was appointed as pro bono counsel for Oshiro (ECF

5.

When the appointment order was entered, Oshiro’s counsel was out of the country

26 No. 49).
27

28 and only recently returned. Counsel for Oshiro has not even been able to connect with his client.

1

6.

1

Although pro bono counsel was not appointed until after the deadline to respond

2 to the summary-judgment motion, Oshiro’s failure to file his response before the deadline was the
3 result of excusable neglect. He likely was under the impression that counsel would respond on his
4 behalf, and allowing his appointed counsel to respond should help better facilitate resolution of
5 that motion.

7.

6

To accommodate the recent appearance of Oshiro’s counsel and to provide

7 sufficient time to Oshiro’s counsel to discuss this matter with him, the parties have agreed to an
8 extension of the deadline for Oshiro to file his response to the summary-judgment motion.

8.

9

The parties thus stipulate that Oshiro may have 30 days from the entry of the order

10 approving this stipulation to file a response to the summary-judgment motion.

9.

11

This is the first request for an extension of time and is made in good faith and to

LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89134

HOLLAND & HART LLP

9555 HILLWOOD DRIVE, 2ND FLOOR

12 allow Oshiro time to brief the issues raised by Bachman. This request is not meant for purposes of
13 delay.
14
15
16
17
18
19

Dated: February 2, 2024
/s/ Jon T. Pearson
Jon T. Pearson
Caitlan J. McMasters
HOLLAND & HART LLP
9555 Hillwood Drive, 2nd Floor
Las Vegas, Nevada 89134

/s/ E. Matthew Freeman
Robert W. Freeman, Jr.
E. Matthew Freeman
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
6385 S. Rainbow Blvd., Suite 600
Las Vegas, Nevada 89118

Counsel for Perry Brian Oshiro

Counsel for Defendant Officer Marissa Bachman

20
21

Order

22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24

______________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

25
26

February 5, 2024
Dated: ________________________

27
28

2