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.

Gates v. Legrand

United States District Court, D. Nevada

April 18, 2019

RICHARD R. GATES, Plaintiff,
v.
ROBERT LEGRAND, et al., Defendants.

          AARON D. FORD, Attorney General, 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 REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

         Defendants Romeo Aranas and Don Poag by and through counsel, Aaron D. Ford, 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 based on Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b), the following memorandum of points and authorities, and all papers and pleadings on file herein.

         MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

         I. FACTS AND RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         This is a prisoner civil rights action brought by Plaintiff Richard Gates (Plaintiff), pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Court has petmitted Plaintiff to proceed with three Counts alleging an Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claim against Defendants Hegge, Poag and Aranas. ECF No. 7 at 12.

         On March 19, 2019, Defendants filed their Motion for Summary Judgment (MSJ). ECF No. 38. Plaintiff opposed the motion on April 4, 2019. ECF No. 43. Defendants reply is thetefore due today, April 18, 2019. However, Defendants need additional time to reply to Plaintiffs opposition.

         Recently, Defendants' counsel encountered unexpected health problems requiring surgery and preventing her from being in the office. Although counsel has now returned to work, her professional obligations have been especially demanding as a result of her absence. Therefore, counsel respectfully requests one additional week to file her clients reply.

         II. DISCUSSION

         A. Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b)(1) allows this Court to extend deadlines.

         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. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992).

         B. Good cause exists to enlarge the time for Defendants to reply.

         Defendants' reply to Plaintiffs opposition to their MSJ is due today, so they are seeking an extension before the expiration of the deadline. Accordingly, Defendants need only ...


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.