Filed: Aug. 06, 2018
Latest Update: Aug. 06, 2018
Summary: DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO FILE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Third Request) MIRANDA M. DU , District Judge . Defendants, Renee Baker, Curtis Kerner, and Michael Koehn (Defendants), by and through counsel, Adam Paul Laxalt, Attorney General of the State of Nevada, and Gerri Lynn Hardcastle, Deputy Attorney General, hereby submit their Motion for Enlargement of Time to File a Motion for Summary Judgment (Third Request). This Motion is based on Federal Rule of Civil Procedur
Summary: DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO FILE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Third Request) MIRANDA M. DU , District Judge . Defendants, Renee Baker, Curtis Kerner, and Michael Koehn (Defendants), by and through counsel, Adam Paul Laxalt, Attorney General of the State of Nevada, and Gerri Lynn Hardcastle, Deputy Attorney General, hereby submit their Motion for Enlargement of Time to File a Motion for Summary Judgment (Third Request). This Motion is based on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure..
More
DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO FILE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Third Request)
MIRANDA M. DU, District Judge.
Defendants, Renee Baker, Curtis Kerner, and Michael Koehn (Defendants), by and through counsel, Adam Paul Laxalt, Attorney General of the State of Nevada, and Gerri Lynn Hardcastle, Deputy Attorney General, hereby submit their Motion for Enlargement of Time to File a Motion for Summary Judgment (Third Request). This Motion is based on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(B), the following Memorandum of Points and Authorities, and all papers and pleadings on file in this action.
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
I. ARGUMENT
Defendants respectfully request a fourteen (14) day extension of time out from the current deadline (August 1, 2018) to file a dispositive motion in this case. Counsel for Defendants is confronted with numerous competing deadlines and a high workload due to staffing changes in the Office of the Attorney General. However, such obstacles are currently being resolved and the requested extension of time should afford Defendants adequate time to file a dispositive motion in this case.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1) governs extensions of time and provides as follows:
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.
Defendants' request is untimely by one (1) day and regrettably, Defendants must rely on excusable neglect to justify an extension. See ECF No. 38; see also FED. R. CIV. P. 6(b)(1)(B). Due to a sudden death in the family on August 1, 2018, defense counsel was unable to submit a dispositive motion on that deadline. A determination of excusable neglect is soundly within the discretion of the Court. See Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 460 (9th Cir. 1983) (internal citations omitted). Defense counsel is aware that the Court ruled that no further extensions would be granted. See ECF No. 38. However, defense counsel respectfully relies upon the Court's indulgence, given the unexpected contingency (sudden death of a family member) that arose on August 1, 2018. The requested fourteen (14) day extension of time should permit Defendants time to submit a dispositive motion. Defendants assert that the excusable neglect is present to warrant the requested extension of time.
For these reasons, Defendants respectfully request a fourteen (14) day extension of time from the current deadline to file a dispositive motion in this case, with a new deadline to and including Wednesday, August 15, 2018.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
