Collins v. Collins et al

Filing 342

ORDER granting ECF No. 341 Motion to Extend Time : Supplement to Motion to stay case (ECF No. 336 ) due by 9/17/2021. Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb on 9/13/2021. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

Case 3:16-cv-00111-MMD-WGC Document 342 Filed 09/13/21 Page 1 of 3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

AARON D. FORD
Attorney General
ALEXANDER J. SMITH (Bar No. 15484C)
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, Romeo Aranas,
Isidro Baca, Joshua Collins, Karen Gedney,
Joel Hightower, Silvia Irvin, Robert LeGrand,
David Mar, E. K. McDaniel, and Lisa Walsh

11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

12

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

13

RONALD COLLINS,

14

Case No. 3:16-cv-00111-MMD-WGC
ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR AN
EXTENSION OF TIME OF SEVEN
DAYS TO SUPPLEMENT THEIR
AUGUST 31, 2021 MOTION
(ECF NO. 336) TO STAY THE ACTION
UNTIL RESOLUTION OF A
FORTHCOMING RULE 12(b)(1)
MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF
SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION

Plaintiff,

15

v.

16

JOSHUA COLLINS, et al.,

17

Defendants.

18
19
20

Defendants, Romeo Aranas, Isidro Baca, Joshua Collins, Karen Gedney, Joel

21

Hightower, Silvia Irvin, Robert LeGrand, David Mar, E. K. McDaniel, and Lisa Walsh, by

22

and through counsel, Aaron D. Ford, Attorney General of the State of Nevada, and

23

Alexander J. Smith, Deputy Attorney General of the State of Nevada, hereby request that

24

the court grants Defendants an additional seven days to supplement their August 31, 2021

25

motion (ECF No. 336) to stay the action until resolution of a forthcoming Rule 12(b)(1)

26

motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.*

27
28

*

Rule 6(b)(1), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, governs an extension of time:

Page 1

Case 3:16-cv-00111-MMD-WGC Document 342 Filed 09/13/21 Page 2 of 3

1

A September 3, 2021 order (ECF No. 340) states:

2

Procedurally, the court cannot discern at this time whether the “vehicle” to question
the court’s jurisdiction over a motion to enforce a settlement agreement would be a
Rule 12(b)(1) motion, or a Rule 12(h)(3) motion – or whether Defendants should have
contested jurisdiction at the outset when responding to Plaintiff’s motion to enforce
the settlement agreement. It would appear to the court that Defendants’ motion to
stay the action adequately addresses the jurisdictional argument and an additional
Rule 12 motion, on whichever subsection, is unnecessary. Nevertheless, the court will
allow Defendant to and including Friday, September 10, 2021, to file a motion
challenging jurisdiction of this court to address Plaintiff’s motion to enforce the
settlement agreement.

3
4
5
6
7
8

(ECF No. 340 at 3)

9

Indeed, in their August 31, 2021 motion (ECF No. 336) to stay, Defendants provided

10

the court with over sixteen pages of extensive legal research and analysis on the

11

complicated questions that arise in the context of Rule 41 and state in the final paragraph

12

of the conclusion: “Finally, Defendants invite the court to construe this motion to stay as a

13

combined motion to stay and motion to dismiss under Rule 41(b)(1) if it considers the issue

14

of subject-matter jurisdiction sufficiently briefed.” (ECF No. 336 at 16). As per the above

15

quote from the September 3, 2021 order, the court accepts that the issue of subject-matter

16

jurisdiction is already sufficiently briefed but graciously grants Defendants an additional

17

week in which to supplement that motion with an additional Rule 12(b)(1) motion.

18

Defendants express their gratitude for the opportunity to provide the court with

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

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[.]
Under Rule 6, good cause is not a rigorous or high standard, and courts have construed the
test broadly. Ahanchion v. Kenan Pictures, 624 F.3d 1253 (9th Cir. 2010). For the reasons outlined
on pages 2–3, Defendants show good cause for a brief extension of time. Second, Local Rule (LR) IA
6-1 requires that a motion to extend time must state the reasons for the extension requested. LR
26-3 requires that a motion to extend any date set by the discovery plan, scheduling order, or other
order must, as well as satisfying the requirements of LR IA 6-1, demonstrate good cause for the
extension. Defendants assert that they demonstrate good cause under both Rule 6 and the local
rules.

Page 2

Case 3:16-cv-00111-MMD-WGC Document 342 Filed 09/13/21 Page 3 of 3

1

clarification and for the court’s speedy response in adjudicating Defendants’ recent

2

motions.

3

Because the court afforded only seven days to move, because Attorney Smith has

4

handled a particularly heavy caseload this last week involving several important deadlines,

5

because several staff are resigning and cases are being reassigned, because this area of law

6

is complex in places, and because the court raises the issue of whether the “vehicle” to

7

question the court’s jurisdiction at this time is via a Rule 12(b)(1) or a Rule 12(h)(3) motion,

8

Defendants respectfully request an additional week to address that and any other issues

9

that might arise in the course of extra research. The Rule 12(b)(1)/Rule 12(h)(3) issue did

10

arise when Attorney Smith researched this issue—he discovered that across numerous

11

districts defendants have moved under either provision—but Defendants wish to back that

12

up with authority, although they assert that either “vehicle” is appropriate.

13

Second, Defendants wish to draw to the court’s attention to the most pertinent

14

arguments and authorities contained within their August 31, 2021 motion so as to

15

specifically clarify several issues and assist the court further in arriving at a just and

16

legally-sound decision. Attorney Smith will consult several additional civil procedure

17

treatises in order to consolidate several of Defendants’ arguments.

18

In sum, Defendants demonstrate good cause for extending the September 10, 2021

19

deadline to September 17, 2021, in which they will really focus the court’s attention on

20

several key cases and pertinent quotes from the very many relevant authorities cited in

21

their August 31, 2021 motion.

22

DATED this 10th day of September, 2021.

23

AARON D. FORD
Attorney General

24

By: /s/ Alexander J. Smith
ALEXANDER J. SMITH (Bar No. 15484C)
Deputy Attorney General

25
26

Attorneys for Defendants

27
28

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: September 13, 2021.

_________________________________________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Page 3