United States District Court, D. Nevada
D. FORD Attorney General ROST C. OLSEN, Bar No. 14410 Deputy
Attorney General Attorneys for Defendants Mark Boyd, William
Gittere, and Evelyn Rodriguez
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE NOTICE AS
REQUIRED IN THE MINUTE ORDER (ECF No. 20)
Mark Boyd, William Gittere, and Evelyn Rodriguez, by and
through counsel, Aaron D. Ford, Attorney General of the State
of Nevada, and Peter E. Dunkley, Deputy Attorney General
(DAG), hereby submit their Motion for Extension of Time to
File Notice as Required in ECF No. 20. This Motion is based
on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(B), the following
Memorandum of Points and Authorities, and all papers and
pleadings on file in this action.
OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIE 5
respectfully request until close of business on Friday,
January 10, 2020 to file the Notice called for in ECF No. 20
explaining why the Office of the Attorney General does not
accept service on behalf of Defendant Richard C. Adams. At
the time of entry and service of the Minute Order (ECF No.
20) on December 19, 2019, undersigned counsel inadvertently
neglected to ensure the deadline was properly noted on his
calendar. Decl. of Rost C. Olsen, ¶ 5.
matter subsequently came back to the undersigned's
attention on January 6, 2020 when Court staff reached out to
him to inquire as to the status of the Notice. Id.
at ¶ 6.
requested extension of time will afford Defendants adequate
time to properly brief the Notice and submit it to the Court.
Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1) governs extensions 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.
"[E]xcusable neglect" is an "elastic
concept." Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick
Assocs., 507 U.S. 380, 392, 113 S.Ct. 1489, 1496, 123
L.Ed.2d 74 (1993). The determination of what is
"excusable" is "at bottom an equitable one,
taking account of all relevant circumstances surrounding the
party's omission." Id. at 395, 113 S.Ct. at
1498. "Cases should be decided upon their merits
whenever reasonably possible." Eitel v. McCool,
782 F.2d 1470, 1472 (9th Cir. 1986).
case, Defendants' failure to timely file and objection or
a request for an extension is due to excusable neglect.
See Decl. of Rost C. Olsen, ¶ ¶ 1-6. The
shortage of support staff during the holiday season in which
the Minute Order was entered and undersigned's
inadvertent oversight led to the failure of placing this
particular deadline on his calendar. Id. at ¶
¶ 4-6. This failure, in combination with managing other
competing deadlines, resulted in undersigned's
inadvertent failure to timely prepare and submit the Notice.
Id. at ¶ ¶ 4-6. The requested extension
will permit undersigned an opportunity to properly brief and
file the Notice. Defendants assert that the circumstances are
such that excusable neglect is present which would warrant
the requested extension of time aid will facilitate the
policy of a decision on the merits. See Id. at
¶ ¶ 4-6; see also Eitel, 782 F.2d at 1472.
these reasons, Defendants respectfully request an extension
of time until close of business on Friday, January 10, 2020,
to file the Notice required in ECF No. 20.
EXHIBIT A. Declaration of Rost C. Olsen