United States District Court, D. Nevada
November 25, 2014
HEATHER PAINTER, Plaintiff(s),
AARON ATWOOD, D.D.S., et al., Defendant(s)
For Heather Painter, Plaintiff, ThirdParty Defendant, Counter Defendant, Counter Claimant: Paul S. Padda, LEAD ATTORNEY, Cohen & Padda, LLP, Las Vegas, NV; Ruth L. Cohen, LEAD ATTORNEY, Las Vegas, NV.
For D.D.S. Aaron Atwood, Atwood Urgent Dental Care, PLLC, Defendants, ThirdParty Plaintiffs, Counter Claimants, Counter Defendant: Jason P Weiland, LEAD ATTORNEY, Howard & Howard Attorneys PLLC, Las Vegas, NV; Robert L Rosenthal, LEAD ATTORNEY, Howard and Howard, Las Vegas, NV.
(Docket No. 111)
NANCY J. KOPPE, United States Magistrate Judge.
Pending before the Court is Defendants' " emergency" motion for stay in proceedings, filed on November 25, 2014. Docket No. 111. For the reasons discussed below, the Court declines to shorten briefing schedule for this motion.
Pursuant to Local Rule 7-5, the Court has the sole discretion to determine whether an " emergency" motion is, in fact, an emergency. Local Rule 7-5(d)(3). The filing of emergency motions is disfavored because of the numerous problems that they create for the opposing party and the court resolving them. See, e.g., Mission Power Eng'g Co. v. Continental Cas. Co., 883 F.Supp. 488, 490-92 (C.D. Cal. 1995) (outlining problems caused by motions seeking resolution outside the timetables established for briefing motions set out in the rules).  As a result, courts may deny the emergency relief sought where the movant itself created the emergency situation necessitating resolution of the pending motion outside the ordinary briefing schedule. See, e.g., id . at 493. The failure of the movant to show it was without fault in creating the emergency situation alone justifies denial of the emergency relief sought. See, e.g., Pate v. Wells Fargo Bank Home Mtg., Inc., 2011 WL 2682646, *1 (C.D. Cal. July 7, 2011).
The " emergency" nature of Defendants' motion is of their own making. According to the Declaration of Jason P. Weiland, this motion " needs to be addressed on an emergency basis because the Parties' Joint Pretrial Order is due on or before November 28, 2014, and the Court will not have ruled on the Motion to Certify by that time." Docket No. 111, at 11. Defendants, however, have known of the upcoming pretrial order deadline since October 28, 2014. Id., at 5; see Docket No. 110. Further, Defendants contacted Plaintiff on November 17, 2014, regarding the filing of an emergency motion to stay. Docket No. 111, at 13. Defendants fail to explain why they waited only two business days before the joint pretrial order deadline before filing the pending motion. The Court is unable to find that the situation necessitating emergency review of the pending motion to stay pending resolution of the motion to certify was not of Defendant's own making.
For the reasons discussed more fully above, Defendants' request for " emergency" designation of their motion to stay is denied. The briefing on this motion will proceed according to the normal schedule. See Local Rule 7-2. While the motion is pending, the parties will comply with the scheduling order at Docket No. 55. As such, the joint pretrial order shall be filed no later than November 28, 2014.
IT IS SO ORDERED.