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.

Gruber v. Gedney

United States District Court, D. Nevada

April 23, 2018

RICHARD L. GRUBER, Plaintiff,
v.
KAREN GEDNEY, et al., Defendants.

          ADAM PAUL LAXALT Attorney General GERRI LYNN HARDCASTLE, Deputy Attorney General State of Nevada Bureau of Litigation Public Safety Division Attorneys for Defendants Romeo Aranas, Karen Gedney, and Dana Marks.

          DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION (ECF NO. 91) TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

         Defendants, Romeo Aranas, Karen Gedney, and Dana Marks, by and through counsel, Adam Paul Laxalt, Attorney General of the State of Nevada, and Gerri Lynn Hardcastle, Deputy Attorney General, hereby move this honorable Court for an enlargement of time to reply to Plaintiffs opposition to Defendants' motion for summary judgment. This motion is made and based on Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b)(1), the following memorandum of points and authorities, and all pleadings and papers on file herein.

         MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

         I. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         This case is a pro se inmate civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ECF No. 34. Plaintiff, Richard Gruber (Plaintiff), alleges that Romeo Aranas, Karen Gedney, and Dana Marks (collectively, Defendants) were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical need of Parkinson's disease by refusing to treat Plaintiff. Id. at 3.

         On March 20, 2018, Plaintiff filed his Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF No. 91. Defendants' reply brief was due April 3, 2018. Due to personal obligations, Defendants' counsel was unable to complete her clients' reply by April 3rd and moved for an enlargement of time to file the reply. ECF No. 94. This honorable Court graciously granted Defendants' motion and allowed Defendants up to and including April 10, 2018 to file their reply. ECF No. 95. Although Defendants and their counsel intended to comply with today's deadline, counsel encountered an office emergency and sought until April 12, 2018 to file her clients' reply brief. ECF No. 96.

         Counsel's request for two additional days, however, was shortsighted, because it did not allow this Court sufficient time to rule on the motion. Because this Court had not ruled on their second request for an enlargement of time, Defendants did not file their reply and awaited this Court's ruling. Earlier today, April 16, 2018, this honorable Court granted Defendants' second request for an enlargement of time and filed its order. ECF No. 97. As the deadline for Defendants to file their reply passed before this Court filed its order granting their motion for an enlargement of time, Defendants respectfully make this third request for an enlargement of time and submit their reply brief contemporaneously with this motion.

         II. LEGAL STANDARD

         District courts have inherent power to control their dockets. Hamilton Copper & Steel Corp. v. Primary Steel, Inc., 898 F.2d 1428, 1429 (9th Cir. 1990); Oliva v. Sullivan, 958 F.2d 272, 273 (9th Cir. 1992). Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b)(1) governs enlargements 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.

         Therefore, a party requesting an enlargement of time to complete an act after the expiration of the time to do so must show "excusable neglect." Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b)(1)(B). The Supreme Court has outlined several factors for determining when neglect is excusable for the purposes of FRCP 6(b)(1)(B). Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P'ship., 507 U.S. 380, 395 (1993). Those factors are as follows: "the danger of prejudice to the [non-movant], the length of the delay and its potential impact on judicial proceedings, the reason for the delay, including whether it was within the reasonable control of the movant, and whether the movant acted in good faith." Id.

         III. DISCUSSION

         Here, Defendants sought and received two (2) additional days to file their reply brief. Although this honorable Court allowed Defendants up to and including April 12, 2018 to file their brief, Defendants did not learn of the Court's decision until today, April 16, 2018, at 2:06 PM. Defendants did not file their reply on April 12, 2018, because this Court had not yet decided their motion, so they were uncertain if filing the reply was appropriate on that date. In retrospect, Defendants' counsel should have requested a minimum extension of one week in order to allow this Court to enter its order.

         Nonetheless, Defendants assert that their neglect in failing to file their reply brief is excusable. First, Defendants do not anticipate any unfair prejudice to Plaintiff. Second, Defendants are solely two (2) business days late in filing their reply, so they do not foresee any impact-and especially not any negative impact-on the Court's proceedings. The reason for the delay in filing the reply until today is that this Court did not decide Defendants' second request for an enlargement of time until earlier today, when the requested deadline had already passed. As stated, Defendants should not have requested such a short deadline in their second request, so that this Court could have had sufficient ...


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.