GLORIA M. NAVARRO, District Judge.
Defendants, Catherine Cortez Masto, Gregory Cox, Ross Miller, Nevada Department of Corrections, and Brian Sandoval, by and through counsel, Adam Paul Laxalt, Attorney General of the State of Nevada, and Micheline N. Fairbank, Senior Deputy Attorney General, hereby move for an enlargement of time to submit a Joint Status Report pursuant to Court Order (#25)
On July 10, 2015, this Court issued an order requiring the parties to submit a Joint Status Report notifying the Court of the status of this matter. (#25) As there has been no initiation of any prosecution by Plaintiff in this action since Plaintiff submitted his Notice to Proceed Pro Se (#24), Defense counsel anticipated that Plaintiff would initiate contact with Defendants upon receipt of the Court's Order (#25) prior to the July 20, 2015, deadline. Additionally, counsel for Defendants was absent from her office on July 14
Accordingly, Defendants herby move the Court for a sixty-day enlargement of time to submit a Joint Status Report.
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B), the Court may extend the time upon which an act must be done "on motion made after the time has expired if the party failed to act because of excusable neglect." Here, Defendants assert that due to the inadvertence and oversight, the deadlines set by the Court in its Order were inadvertently missed due to travel out of the office for other matters; accordingly, the deadline for the Acceptance of Service passed without Defendants taking appropriate action.
The United States Supreme Court has interpreted the term excusable neglect under the rules governing bankruptcy proceedings to "encompass both simple, faultless omissions to act and, more commonly, omissions caused by carelessness." Pioneer Inv. Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates Ltd. Partnership, 507 U.S. 380, 388 (1993). In Committee for Idaho's High Desert, Inc. v. Yost, 92 F.3d 814 (9th Cir. 1996), the Ninth Circuit extended the Pioneer, analysis of excusable neglect to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b).
Here, the Court issued its Order directing the parties to submit a Joint Status Report on July 10, 2015 (#25). Plaintiff represents that he did not receive a copy of this Court's Order. Counsel for Defendants was absent from her office three out of the six business days which the parties had to meet and confer and has been engaged in trial preparations for a matter commencing on July 23, 2015. As Plaintiff did not initiate contact, Defendants' then sought to contact and communicate with Plaintiff. However, due to inadvertence and excusable neglect, these matters were not resolved prior to the July 20, 2015, deadline for filing the Joint Status Report.
However, the parties have conferred and have agreed to initiate informal settlement communications. And pursuant to Plaintiff's request, Defendants hereby seek a sixty day enlargement of time to permit the parties to engage in these informal communications and then file a Joint Status Report identifying whether such communications were effective or whether the parties are prepared to proceed with the action.
Based upon the foregoing, Defendants' respectfully request a sixty day enlargement of time, up to and including,