Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Carter v. Richland Holdings, Inc.

United States District Court, D. Nevada

March 23, 2017

JOHN CARTER and CHRISTINE CARTER, Plaintiffs,
v.
RICHLAND HOLDINGS, INC. d/b/a ACCTCORP OF SOUTHERN NEVADA, a Nevada Corporation; RC. WILLEY aka RC WILLEY FINANCIAL SERVICES, and RANDALL CORPORATION d/b/a BOWEN LAW OFFICES, Defendant.

          THE LAW OFFICE OF VERNON NELSON, VERNON NELSON, ESQ., Attorney for Plaintiffs John Carter and Christine Carter

          VERIFIED UNOPPOSED MOTION AND ORDER TO EXTEND PLAINTIFFS TIME TO FILE REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

          RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II United States District Judge

         Plaintiffs, John and Christine Carter ("Plaintiffs"), by and through the counsel, the Law Office of Vernon Nelson hereby moves the Court for an extension of time through and including March 8, 2017 for Plaintiffs to file their Reply Brief in Support of their Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint. As verified below, Plaintiffs attorney Vernon A. Nelson, Jr., Esq. understands that counsel for Defendants Richland Holdings and RC Willey, Jared M. Moser, Esq. of Marquis Aurbach and Coffing does not oppose the requested extension.

         1. In addition to this matter, the Plaintiff has filed two similar actions against the same parties, to wit: Geraldoeta.lv. Richland Holdings, Inc. etal 2:17-cv-00015-JCM-PALand Whitt v. Richland Holdings, Inc., et al, 2:17-cv-00014-APG-NJK (collectively the "Richland Actions"). Defendants filed similar Motions to Dismiss in each of the Richland Actions. The Plaintiffs in each action filed similar Oppositions and similar Motions for Leave to file Amended Complaints.

         2. The Defendants filed similar Oppositions to each of Plaintiff s Motions for Leave to file Amended Complaints. In Geraldo and Whitt, the Plaintiffs' Reply Briefs were due on March 6, 2017. However, Plaintiffs counsel did not recognize that the Reply Brief in Carter was due on February 22, 2017.

         3. Plaintiffs did not recognize this due to turnover within his office staff. Plaintiffs Counsel's hired a new Legal Assistant who started on February 15, 2015, the same day the Defendants filed their Opposition to Plaintiff Carter's Motion for Leave to file an Amended Complaint. Plaintiff s former Legal Assistant had left several days prior. Since it was the new Legal Assistant's first day, Plaintiffs counsel did not notice that the Court had Docketed the due date for Carter's Reply as February 22nd.

         4. As soon as he recognized this problem, Plaintiffs counsel asked Defendants' counsel to stipulate to allow Plaintiff s counsel to file Carter's Reply on Monday. A true copy of the exchange between Plaintiffs counsel and Defendant's counsel is as follows:

         Email #1

         From: Vernon Nelson [mailto:vnelson@nelsonlawfirm lv.com]

         Sent: Sunday, March 05, 2017 6:10 PM

         To: Jared M. Moser

         Cc: Chad F. Clement; Barbara A. Frauenfeld; Melanie Quintos Nelson

         Subject: RE: Carter v. AcctCorp et al.; Discovery Plan and Scheduling; MAC File No. 14665-003 [IWOV- iManage.FID1000842]

         Hi Jared-

         We recently had to replace the assistant who was helping Melanie because she was not keeping up with calendaring (as is evidenced by this email).

         I am working on our Reply Briefs for our motion for leave to amend in Geraldo/Guzman and Whitt and I just noticed that our former assistant did not calendar the short reply date for the Carter Reply Brief.

         The Carter Reply will be very similar to Geraldo/Guzman's. Thus, I am respectfully requesting that you stipulate to allow me to file a late reply in Carter. I will file it at the same time I file the Reply briefs in Guzman and Whitt tomorrow.

         I appreciate your consideration and I promise to provide you with the same courtesy throughout these cases.

         Kind regards, Vernon Nelson

         The Law Office of Vernon Nelson

         Email #2 From: Jared M. Moser [mailto:jmoser@maclaw.com]

         Sent: Monday, March 6, 2017 9:42 AM

         To: Vernon Nelson <vnelson@nelsonlawfirmlv.com>

         Cc: Chad F. Clement <cclement@maclaw.com>; Barbara A. Frauenfeld <bfrauenfeld@maclaw.com>;

         Melanie Quintos Nelson <mqnelson@nelsonlawfirmlv.com>

         Subject: RE: Carter v. AcctCorp et al.; Discovery Plan and Scheduling; MAC File No. 14665-003 [IWOV- iManage.FID1000842]

         Vernon, I see that the Geraldo/Guzman Reply has been filed. As to the Carter Reply, our Response in Opposition to your Motion was filed 2/15, making the deadline to file a Reply 2/22. It is a bit unusual to get a request for extension so late (nearly two weeks after the deadline has passed), and for retroactive application, but it is not our intention to be difficult. We, too, would prefer to give and receive reasonable professional courtesies when appropriate.

         That said, because the actions of this assistant may become relevant down the road in this case, we are not opposed to an extension if you are willing to provide (1) her name, (2) hire date, and (3) termination date. Again, contingent upon your providing this information, we would not oppose your request.

         As always, please feel free to contact me should you have any questions or concerns. Thank you, (Image Omitted)

         Jared M. Moser, Esq.

         10001 Park Run Drive

         Email #3 From:

         Vernon Nelson

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Sent: Monday, March ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.