Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Slack v. United Airlines, Inc., 2:18-cv-0899-GMN-DJA. (2019)

Court: District Court, D. Nevada Number: infdco20191213b30 Visitors: 7
Filed: Dec. 12, 2019
Latest Update: Dec. 12, 2019
Summary: ORDER DANIEL J. ALBREGTS , Magistrate Judge . This matter is before the Court on Defendant's Motion to Extend the Dispositive Motions Deadline (ECF No. 46), filed on November 26, 2019. The Court also considered pro se Plaintiff's Response (ECF No. 47), filed on December 5, 2019, and Defendant's Reply (ECF No. 48), filed on December 11, 2019. Defendant seeks an order extending the dispositive motions deadline, currently set for January 14, 2020, until 45 days after the Court rules on Defend
More

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Defendant's Motion to Extend the Dispositive Motions Deadline (ECF No. 46), filed on November 26, 2019. The Court also considered pro se Plaintiff's Response (ECF No. 47), filed on December 5, 2019, and Defendant's Reply (ECF No. 48), filed on December 11, 2019.

Defendant seeks an order extending the dispositive motions deadline, currently set for January 14, 2020, until 45 days after the Court rules on Defendant's pending Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 30). In doing so, Defendant argues that Fed.R.Civ.P. 1's purpose to secure the "just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action" would be furthered by first receiving an order from the Court regarding its request to dismiss two of Plaintiff's claims. (ECF No. 46, 2). Plaintiff responds that Defendant should proceed on the current dispositive motions deadline as it will not suffer any hardship if the deadline is not extended given that Defendant has had sufficient time to conduct discovery. (ECF No. 47, 1). Defendant replies that it met the good cause standard and Plaintiff failed to articulate any reason to deny the request.

The Court finds that the goals of Rule 1 would be furthered by granting an extension to the dispositive motions deadline. In order to avoid receiving yet another request to dismiss the same claims, albeit under the differing summary judgment standard, the Court finds that the most efficient use of resources is to extend the dispositive motions deadline until after the Court decides the pending Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 30). Plaintiff did not articulate any prejudice he would suffer in granting this extension and the Court finds none under these circumstances. However, Defendant failed to provide any justification for an extension of 45 days and the Court finds that 30 days is more than sufficient. Accordingly,

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Extend the Dispositive Motions Deadline (ECF No. 46) is granted in part and denied in part.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the dispositive motions deadline shall be extended from January 14, 2020, until 30 days after the Court rules on Defendant's pending Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 30)

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer