Colpo Caldo LLC v. Ronald Trunk et al

Filing 4

ORDER granting ECF No. 2 Motion for Extension of Time to file response to ECF No. 1 -1 Complaint. United States of America response/answer due 8/17/2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb on 6/20/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW)

Case 3:18-cv-00289-LRH-WGC Document 2 Filed 06/19/18 Page 1 of 4

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

DAYLE ELIESON
United States Attorney
GREG ADDINGTON
Nevada State Bar #6875
Assistant United States Attorney
Bruce R. Thompson Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse
400 South Virginia Street, Suite 900
Reno, Nevada 89501
[phone]
[phone]-facsimile
[e-mail]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

9
10

COLPO CALDO, LLC, a Nevada limited
liability company,

11
12
13

3:18-cv-289-LRH-WGC
ORDER GRANTING
UNITED STATES’ MOTION FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME IN WHICH TO
FILE RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT
(First Request)

Plaintiff,
v.
RONALD TRUNK, et al.,

14
Defendants.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

Defendant United States of America, through its undersigned counsel, moves this Court
for an Order extending the time within which it is required to file a responsive pleading to and
including August 17, 2018. Counsel for plaintiff does not object to the requested extension of
time. The basis for this motion is as follows:
1.

This quiet title and judicial foreclosure action was originally filed in the Third

Judicial District for the State of Nevada (Lyon County). Among the several defendants named in
the Complaint is the United States.

24
1

Case 3:18-cv-00289-LRH-WGC Document 2 Filed 06/19/18 Page 2 of 4

1
2

2.

property superior to the interest alleged by plaintiff.

3
4

It is anticipated that the United States will assert an interest in the subject real

3.

On June 18, 2018, the United States filed its Notice of Removal (#1) removing this

action from the State Court to the Federal Court pursuant to 28 USC §§ 1442(a) and 1444.

5

4.

Rule 81(c), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, provides the time period to answer

6

a complaint in a removed action. The time period provided by Rule 81(c) is the later of twenty-

7

one (21) days after service of the complaint or seven (7) days after removal. However, the United

8

States would ordinarily be permitted a sixty (60) day response time, calculated from the date of

9

service of process, pursuant to Rule 12(a)(3), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

10

5.

At this time, it does not appear that service of process was effected on the United

11

States prior to removal of this action to this Court. United States Department of Agriculture -

12

Office of General Counsel became aware of the State-court action in mid-June 2018.

13

6.

The usual sixty-day response time is needed to adequately evaluate the allegations

14

of the complaint, ascertain the United States’ interest in the subject real property, and to thereafter

15

prepare a response to the complaint.

16

7.

No prior request has been made for the relief requested herein. The undersigned

17

spoke to plaintiff’s counsel and was advised he has no objection to the requested extension.

18

//

19
20

//

21
22

//

23
24

//
2

Case 3:18-cv-00289-LRH-WGC Document 2 Filed 06/19/18 Page 3 of 4

1

8.

It is requested that the time for the United States to respond to the complaint be

2

extended to sixty days following the date of removal of this action, an extension that would yield

3

a deadline of August 17, 2018, for a response.

4

Respectfully submitted,

5

DAYLE ELIESON
United States Attorney

6

__/s/ Greg Addington____________
GREG ADDINGTON
Assistant United States Attorney

7
8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10
11
12

June 20
Date: _________________, 2018.
_________________________________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
3