Opinion
3:19-cv-00217-MMD-WGC
06-15-2021
IVAN LEE MATTHEWS, II, Plaintiff, v. WILLIAM GITTERE, et al., Defendant.
Ivan Lee Matthews 221 W 48th Street Los Angeles, CA 90037 AARON D. FORD Attorney General ROST C. OLSEN Deputy Attorneys for Defendants An employee of the Office of the Attorney General Attorneys for Defendants Kira Butcher, Jacob Cruz, William Gittere, William Reubart, and Brandon Stubbs
Ivan Lee Matthews 221 W 48th Street Los Angeles, CA 90037
AARON D. FORD Attorney General
ROST C. OLSEN Deputy Attorneys for Defendants
An employee of the Office of the Attorney General
Attorneys for Defendants Kira Butcher, Jacob Cruz, William Gittere, William Reubart, and Brandon Stubbs
DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS DEADLINE (FIRST REQUEST)
Defendants Kira Butcher, Jacob Cruz, William Gittere, William Reubart, and Brandon Stubbs, by and through counsel, Aaron D. Ford, Attorney General of the State of Nevada, and Rost C. Olsen, Deputy Attorney General, move this Court for a brief extension of the dispositive motions deadline in this matter, from June 14, 2021 to June 28, 2021.
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
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.
Here, undersigned counsel just completed another dispositive motion in a case involving Plaintiff Matthews last week, and anticipated having enough time to finish a dispositive motion in this matter by today as well. However, this estimation proved to be too ambitious, as undersigned was then tasked to cover a state court hearing today for a colleague due to illness, which required undersigned to prepare for that hearing rather than draft the motion for summary judgment in this matter. Accordingly, “the practicalities of life” in these circumstances lead Defendants to seek this short extension of the dispositive motions deadline. See Canup, 31 F.R.D. at 283.
See Matthews v. Reubart, et al., 3:19-cv-00221-MMD-CLB, ECF no. 12.
This short extension of the dispositive motions deadline will allow undersigned to brief the issues and potentially provide the Court bases to adjudicate this matter via motion, either partially or fully, which would avoid unnecessary trial and preserve limited judicial resources.
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants move the Court to extend the dispositive motions deadline in this matter from June 14, 2021 to June 28, 2021. Defendants submit this request in good faith and not to cause any undue delay or other improper purpose.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that I am an employee of the Office of the Attorney General, State of Nevada, and that on this 14th day of June, 2021, I caused to be deposited for mailing a true and correct copy of the foregoing, DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS DEADLINE (First Request), to the following: