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.

Martinez v. Dzurenda

United States District Court, D. Nevada

September 10, 2019

DANIEL MARTINEZ, Plaintiff,
v.
JAMES DZURENDA, et al., Defendants.

          AARON D. FORD Attorney General

          DENNIS W. HOUGH Deputy Attorney General Attorneys for Defendant

          DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO FILE A DISPOSITIVE MOTION

         Defendants Jennifer Nash et al., by and through counsel, Aaron D. Ford, Attorney General of the State of Nevada, and Dennis W. Hough, Deputy Attorney General, hereby move this Court for an order enlarging the time for Defendants' to file dispositive motions. This Motion is made pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Fed. R. Civ. Proc") 6(b) and is based upon the following Points and Authorities and all pleadings and papers on file herein. This Motion is made in good faith and not for the purposes of undue delay.

         MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

         I. RELEVANT FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         Daniel Martinez ("Plaintiff) is a Nevada Department of Corrections ("NDOC") inmate proceeding pro se in this § 1983 action. Plaintiff has been released from prison. After screening, the Court construed Plaintiffs' allegations as an Eighth Amendment claim regarding condition of confinement. On February 26, 2019, parties participated in an Early Mediation Conference, but a settlement did not result. (ECF No. 14).

         After the parties were unable to settle this case at the Inmate Early Mediation Conference, (ECF No. 15), and Defendants answered, (ECF No. 18), this Court issued its Scheduling Order. (ECF No. 19) In the Scheduling Order, the Court ordered the parties to submit any motions for summary judgment by September 5, 2019.

         Unfortunately, Defendants are unable to comply with this deadline. Defendants need additional time to respond because the Litigation Division of the Office of the Attorney General is currently severely short-staffed. The burden this has placed on the attorneys remaining in the division, including Defendants' counsel, is currently overwhelming.[1] Accordingly, Defendants respectfully request that this Honorable Court allow them sixty (60) additional days, or up to and including Thursday November 4, 2019, to file their dispositive 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.

         "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. DISCUSSION

         Defendants' deadline to file their dispositive motion is Thursday September 5, 2019. As the deadline has not yet expired, they must therefore demonstrate good cause for the requested enlargement. Good cause exists to enlarge the time for them to file their motion, because their counsel is currently unable to complete the motion due to the manner in which severe short-staffing in this division of the Office of the Attorney General has impacted counsel's current workload. Defendants are seeking this enlargement in good faith and not for the purpose of any unnecessary delay. Moreover, Defendants do not perceive any ...


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.