Khamis v. 7-Eleven Inc et al

Filing 36

ORDER granting nunc pro tunc ECF No. 34 Motion to Extend Time to file response to ECF No. 31 Motion for Summary Judgment Response due by 10/18/2018. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 9/17/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9

ARTHUR KHAMIS,

Case No. 3:17-cv-00124-MMD-CBC
Plaintiff,

10

ORDER

v.
11
7-ELEVEN, INC., et al.,
12
Defendants.
13
14

I.

SUMMARY

15

Defendant 7-Eleven, Inc. (“7-Eleven”) filed a motion for summary judgment (“7-

16

Eleven’s Motion”) on August 15, 2018. (ECF No. 31.) The Court informed Plaintiff that he

17

would have through September 7, 2018 to file a response. (ECF No. 32.) Plaintiff has not

18

yet filed a response; however, Plaintiff filed a motion to extend time to find a local attorney

19

on September 4, 2018 (“Plaintiff’s Motion”). (ECF No. 34.) 7-Eleven responded. (ECF No.

20

35.) For the following reasons, the Court construes Plaintiff’s Motion as a motion to extend

21

time to respond to 7-Eleven’s Motion and grants Plaintiff’s Motion. However, Plaintiff is

22

advised that he is now proceeding pro se without the assistance of an attorney, and the

23

Court will not grant further requests for extension of time to allow Plaintiff to retain an

24

attorney.

25

II.

LEGAL STANDARD

26

The grant or denial of an extension of time is predicated on a showing of “good

27

cause.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b). The sufficiency of this showing is committed to the

28

///

1

discretion of the district court. See, e.g., Jenkins v. Commonwealth Land Title Insurance

2

Co., 95 F.3d 791, 795 (9th Cir. 1996).

3

III.

DISCUSSION

4

Plaintiff first raised the issue of retaining counsel at a scheduling conference held

5

on March 15, 2018. (ECF No. 25.) The Court thereafter ordered Plaintiff to retain counsel

6

or file a notice that he would be proceeding pro se by April 23, 2018. (ECF No. 28.) Plaintiff

7

did not comply with this order and instead requested an additional thirty days to retain

8

counsel on June 7, 2018. (ECF No. 29.) Plaintiff then filed another request for an extension

9

of time to retain counsel on September 4, 2018. (ECF No. 34.) Plaintiff has not described

10

his efforts to retain counsel and does not specify how much time he needs to retain

11

counsel. Given that Plaintiff has been unable to retain counsel since at least March 15,

12

2018, and in the absence of any explanation of his efforts, the Court finds that Plaintiff is

13

proceeding with his case pro se. As such, the Court liberally construes Plaintiff’s most

14

recent motion to extend time (ECF No. 34) as a motion to extend time to respond to 7-

15

Eleven’s Motion. So construed, Plaintiff’s motion will be granted.

16

IV.

CONCLUSION

17

It is therefore ordered that Plaintiff’s motion to extend time (ECF No. 34) is granted

18

nunc pro tunc. Plaintiff will have through and until October 18, 2018, to respond to

19

7-Eleven’s motion for summary judgment.

20
21
22

It is further ordered that Plaintiff’s earlier motion to extend time (ECF No. 29) is
denied as moot.
DATED THIS 17th day of September 2018.

23
24
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

25
26
27
28
2