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.

Walker v. City of North Las Vegas

United States District Court, D. Nevada

July 13, 2017

THOMAS WALKER, an individual, and CATHY CATALDO, an individual Plaintiffs,
v.
CITY OF NORTH LAS VEGAS; OFFICER PAUL MAALOUF, individually and in his official capacity as a North Las Vegas Police Department Officer; and OFFICER TRAVIS SNYDER, individually and in his official capacity as a North Las Vegas Police Department Officer, Defendants.

          LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH Robert W. Freeman, Jr., Esq. NBN 3062 Noel E. Eidsmore, Esq. NBN 7688 Attorneys for Defendants

          MCLETCHIE SHELL LLC Margaret A. McLetchie, NBN 10931 Alina M. Shell, NBN 11711 and Jennifer L. Braster, NBN 9982 NAYLOR & BRASTER Attorneys for Plaintiffs

          STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DISPOSITIVE MOTION DEADLINE (FIRST REQUEST)

         Pursuant to Local Rule 26-4, Plaintiffs, THOMAS WALKER and CATHY CATALDO (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”), by and through their attorneys of record, Margaret A. McLetchie and Alina M. Shell of McLetchie Shell, LLC and Jennifer L. Braster of Naylor & Braster, and Defendants, CITY OF NORTH LAS VEGAS, OFFICER PAUL MAALOUF, and OFFICER TRAVIS SNYDER (herein after “Defendants”), by and through their attorneys of record, Robert W. Freeman, Jr., Esq. and Noel E. Eidsmore, Esq., of Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP, hereby stipulate and request that this Court extend the dispositive motion deadline thirty (30) days.

         LOCAL RULE 26-4 REQUIREMENTS

         Discovery in this matter has been completed. However, the parties are hereby requesting that the two remaining deadlines set forth in the Scheduling Order (ECF No. 114) be extended.

         Currently, the last day for filing dispositive motions including, but not limited to motions for summary judgment, shall be extended from July 17, 2017 to August 16, 2017.

         The parties also hereby request that the last day to file a Joint Pretrial Order, including any disclosures pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(3), shall be extended by thirty (30) days from August 16, 2017 to September 15, 2017. In the event dispositive motions are filed, the date for filing the Joint Pretrial Order shall be suspended until thirty (30) days after decision on the dispositive motions or upon further Order by the Court extending the time period in which to file the Joint Pretrial Order.

         The parties aver, pursuant to Local Rule 6-1, that good cause exists for the requested extension. For example, Plaintiffs have three discovery motions which are still pending before this Court. Two of those motions request reconsideration of an order by the magistrate judge quashing subpoenas to two non-parties (ECF Nos. 132 and 133), while the other is motion for sanctions pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(d).

         Counsel for defendants has been occupied with propounding and answering discovery in Hollis v. North Las Vegas, 2:16-cv-2663-JAD-GWF, Murry v. North Las Vegas, 2:17-cv-157-APG -CWH, and Spiotto v. LVMPD, 2:17-cv-0153-GMN-GWF. Further counsel for defendants has been occupied in preparing a Motion for Summary Judgment in Kiessling v. LVMPD, 2:16-cv-690-GMN-NJK.

         Further, the parties believe that dispositive motions may resolve issues related in the case, such as the same will not be required to proceed to a jury and will conserve judicial resources.

         Local Rule 26-4 governs modifications or extension of the scheduling order. Any stipulation or motion must be made no later than twenty-one (21) days before the expiration of the subject deadline, and comply fully with LR 26-4.

         Pursuant to LR 26-4, any motion to extend discovery deadlines must be received by the Court “no later than twenty-one (21) days before the expiration of the subject deadline.” LR 26-4 further states that a request made after the deadline “shall not be granted unless the movant demonstrates that the failure to act was the result of excusable neglect.” The parties recognize that they are requesting an extension of the expert disclosure deadline inside of the twenty-one (21) day period as set forth in LR 26-4. As such, the parties submit that excusable neglect exists to permit granting the instant requested extension. In evaluating excusable neglect, the court considers the following factors: (1) the reason for the delay and whether it was in the reasonable control of the moving party, (2) whether the moving party acted in good faith, (3) the length of the delay and its potential impact on the proceedings, and (4) the danger of prejudice to the nonmoving party. See, Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs., 507 U.S. 380, 395 S.Ct. 1489, 123 L.Ed.2d 74 (1993).

         This extensions request is made in good faith, jointly by the parties, and not for the purposes of delay. Trial in this matter has not yet been set. Moreover, since this request is a joint request, neither party will be prejudiced.

         This Request for an extension of time is not sought for any improper purpose or other purpose of delay. Rather, it is sought by the parties solely for the purpose of allowing sufficient time to conduct discovery in ...


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.