Johnson v. Young et al

Filing 171

ORDER granting ECF No. 170 Motion to Extend Time to File Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for New Trial ECF No. 166 . Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 01/11/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ADAM PAUL LAXALT Attorney General BENJAMIN R. JOHNSON Deputy Attorney General Nevada Bar No. 10632 Bureau of Litigation Public Safety Division 100 N. Carson Street Carson City, NV 89701-4717 Tel: 775-684-1254 Email: BJohnson@ag.nv.gov Attorneys for Defendants Renee Baker, April Witter, and Nissel Young 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 11 LAUSTEVEION JOHNSON, Case No. 3:14-cv-00178-RCJ-VPC Plaintiff, 12 13 v. 14 N. YOUNG, et al. MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL Defendants. 15 16 Defendants, Renee Baker, April Witter, and Nissel Young, by and through counsel, Adam Paul 17 Laxalt, Attorney General of the State of Nevada, and Benjamin R. Johnson, Deputy Attorney General, 18 hereby submit their Motion for Enlargement of Time to File Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for New 19 Trial. This motion is based on the following memorandum of points and authorities, all papers and 20 pleadings on file herein, and any other evidence the Court deems appropriate to consider. 21 22 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I. NATURE OF MOTION 23 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for New Trial (ECF No. 166). The opposition to 24 this motion was due on January 9, 2017. However, all state offices in Northern Nevada, including the 25 Attorney General’s Office, were closed on January 9 due to heavy flooding. Counsel is presently out of 26 the office with bronchitis. Defendants seek a seven day extension of time to file an Opposition to 27 Plaintiff’s Motion for New Trial. 28 /// Office of the Attorney General 100 N. Carson St. Carson City, NV 89701-4717 1 1 II. DISCUSSION FED. R. CIV. P. 6(b)(1) governs enlargements of time and provides as follows: 2 3 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 The proper procedure, when additional time for any purpose is needed, is to present a request for 7 extension of time before the time fixed has expired. Canup v. Mississippi Val. Barge Line Co., 31 8 F.R.D. 282 (W.D.Pa. 1962). Extensions of time may always be asked for, and usually are granted on a 9 showing of good cause if timely made under subdivision (b)(1) of the Rule. Creedon v. Taubman, 8 10 F.R.D. 268 (N.D. Ohio 1947). 11 The Office of the Nevada Attorney General was unexpectedly closed on Monday January 9, 12 2017, due to heavy flooding in Carson City. Counsel for Defendants is currently out of the office with 13 bronchitis and therefore cannot properly respond to Plaintiff’s motion. Based on these considerations 14 and circumstances, Defendants request that the Court grant an extension of seven days to file an 15 opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for New Trial. This request is made in good faith and not for the 16 purposes of causing undue delay or a burden on any party or the court. 17 III. 18 19 20 21 22 23 CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, it is respectfully requested the Court grant an enlargement of time to file an opposition to the motion for new trial. DATED this 10th day of January, 2017. ADAM PAUL LAXALT Attorney General By: BENJAMIN R. JOHNSON Deputy Attorney General Bureau of Litigation Public Safety Division 24 25 26 27 Attorneys for Defendants IT IS SO ORDERED this 11th day of January, 2017. 28 Office of the Attorney General 100 N. Carson St. Carson City, NV 89701-4717 _________________________________ ROBERT C. JONES 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?