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

July 26, 2018

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

          GERRI LYNN HARDCASTLE Deputy Attorney General State of Nevada Bureau of Litigation Public Safety Division Attorneys for Defendants

          DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO OBJECT TO U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AT ECF NO. 101

          ROBERT C. JONES J.

         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 object to the Report and Recommendation of the U.S. Magistrate Judge at ECF No. 101. 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 Defendants, Romeo Aranas, Karen Gedney and Dana Marks, were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical need of Parkinson's disease by refusing to treat him. Id. at 3.

         On November 9, 2017, Defendants filed their motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 67. Plaintiff filed his opposition to Defendant's motion for summary judgment on March 20, 2018. ECF No. 91. Defendants filed their reply to Plaintiff's opposition on April 16, 2018. ECF No. 99.

         Magistrate Judge Cooke entered the Report and Recommendation of U.S. Magistrate Judge on July 11, 2018. ECF No. 101. In her Report and Recommendation, she recommended that District Judge Jones grant summary judgment in favor of Defendant Aranas; however, she recommended that District Judge Jones deny summary judgment in favor of Defendant Gedney and Defendant Marks. Id. at 16.

         As the Report and Recommendation states, a party wishing to object to the Report and Recommendation must file a written objection pursuant to 24 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c) by July 25, 2018. Id. Unfortunately, Defendants will not be able to file their written objection by that time. Defendants' counsel has other deadlines (in other cases) on July 25, 2018, which cannot be extended, and counsel is unable to comply with those deadlines and the deadline for the objection in this case. Accordingly, Defendants request an additional fourteen (14) days to file their objection to the Report and Recommendation of the U.S. Magistrate Judge.

         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.

         “The proper procedure, when additional time for any purpose is needed, is to present to the Court a timely request for an extension before the time fixed has expired (i.e., a request presented before the time then fixed for the purpose in question has expired).” Canup v. Miss. Valley Barge Line Co., 31 F.R.D. 282, 283 (D.Pa. 1962). The Canup Court explained that “the practicalities of life” (such as an attorney's “conflicting professional engagements” or personal commitments such as vacations, family activities, illnesses, or death) often necessitate an enlargement of time to comply with a court deadline. Id. Extensions of time “usually are granted upon a showing of good cause, if timely made.” Creedon v. Taubman, 8 F.R.D. 268, 269 (D.Ohio 1947). The good cause standard considers a party's diligence in seeking the continuance or extension. See, e.g., Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992).

         III. ...


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.