Nguyen v. Smith Salon, LLC

1 AMANDA L. IRELAND, ESQ.

Nevada Bar No. 13155 IRELAND LAW GROUP, LLC 7854 West Sahara Ave. Las Vegas, Nevada 89117 T: (702) 427-2110 F: (702) 441-7637 E: [email protected] and GABRIEL L. GRASSO, ESQ.

6 Nevada Bar No. 7358 GABRIEL L. GRASSO, P.C.

7 411 South 6th Street Las Vegas, NV 89101 T: (702) 868-8866 F: (702) 868-5778 E: [email protected] Attorneys for Defendants UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA SARA KIM NGUYEN, individually, Case No.: 2:21-cv-00213-KJD-BNW Plaintiff, vs. LANE F. SMITH, M.D., individually; SMITH MOTION FOR A FINAL TWO-DAY SALON, LLC dba Chic La Vie, a Limited- EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE Liability Company; SMITH PLASTIC REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION SURGERY INSTITUTE, PC, a Professional TO SEAL OR STRIKE Corporation; SMITH PLASTIC SURGERY BUILDING LLC, a Limited-Liability Company; (Third Request) ROE ENTITIES I – V, inclusive, Defendants.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1) and Local Rules IA 6.1, 6.2, II 7-1, Defendant Lane F. Smith, M.D. (hereinafter “Dr. Smith”) by and through his counsel of record, Amanda L. Ireland, Esq. and Gabriel L. Grasso, Esq., respectfully requests the Court grant his Motion for a final two-day extension of time to file his to Reply to his Motion to Seal Complaint, or in the Alternative, Motion to Strike Scandalous Immaterial Matter (“Motion to Seal or Strike”) (ECF. No. 9) from the prior stipulated extension of April 9, 2021 until April 11, 2021.

3 The Complaint was filed on February 9, 2021, the Motion to Seal or Strike was filed February 26, 2021, and a hearing on the Motion is set for May 6, 2021 at 10 am.

The parties previously stipulated to extend the time for Plaintiff to respond to the Motion to Seal or Strike from March 12th until March 22nd, (ECF. No. 13) granted on March 15, 2021. (ECF. No. 14.) Notwithstanding the extension to March 22nd, Plaintiff filed her Opposition on March 16th. (ECF. No. 15). When counsel participated in the Local Rule 26(f) conference on March 22, 2021, they agreed an extension for Dr. Smith’s Reply was appropriate as a matter of professional courtesy, and on March 23rd the parties submitted their first request and stipulation to extend the time for Defendant to file a Reply to his Motion to Seal or Strike from March 23rd until April 6th. (ECF No. 18). Subsequently, an Order was entered March 30, 2021 (ECF No. 21) setting an Early Neutral Evaluation on May 13, 2021, and a Scheduling Order was entered on April 2, 2021, (ECF No. 22).

On April 10, 2021, the parties submitted a Second Stipulation and Proposed Order to extend the deadline for the Reply from April 6, 2021 until April 9, 2021, for excusable neglect. (ECF No. 24). Specifically, defense counsel, Amanda L. Ireland, Esq., suffered a major IT hardware failure at her home office on April 6th, which caused unavoidable delays due to lost and corrupted files and the disruption of ordering, receiving, and replacing computer equipment. The Reply was ultimately filed on Sunday April 11th.

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1) provides that “[w]hen 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. It is within a trial court’s sound discretion to determine whether to grant an extension of time. Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1258 (9th Cir. 2012).

This third and final request for an extension is made after the expiry of the current deadline to file the reply to the pending motion to seal or strike, therefore something more than “good cause” must be shown. Here, Defendant’s neglect in seeking a third extension is excusable because defense counsel’s IT disruption was unavoidable, and lasted longer than expected, due to undersigned counsel being a solo practitioner and not the most computer-savvy attorney at the best of times.

This request for an extension is submitted following the filing of Dr. Smith’s Reply brief on April 11, 2021, but before the parties’ Second Stipulation and Proposed Order submitted on April 10th was granted.

9 Under the circumstances, a final two-day extension over a weekend is reasonable.

10 Plaintiff will not be prejudiced or inconvenience by the granting of this motion. But denial of the motion would cause undue prejudice to Dr. Smith, since the delay was solely due to the neglect of his counsel.

To avoid further delay, this request was submitted via motion, but defense counsel does not anticipate an opposition from Plaintiff, since the Reply was filed on the weekend and the Motion is not set to be heard until May 6, 2021. // // // // // // // // // // // Based on the foregoing, Dr. Smith respectfully requests the Court grant him this third and | final two-day extension from April 9, 2011 until April 11, 2021, to file his Reply in support of || his Motion to Seal or Strike.

4 DATED this 12" day of April 2021.

5 IRELAND LAW GROUP, LLC 6 /s/ Amanda L. Ireland 7 AMANDA L. IRELAND, ESQ.

Ireland Law Group g 7854 West Sahara Ave. Las Vegas, Nevada 89117 9 Tel: (702) 427-2110 Fax: (702) 441-7637 [email protected] 10 and GABRIEL L. GRASSO, ESQ.

1] GABRIEL L. GRASSO, P.C.

Nevada Bar No. 7358 12 411 South 6" Street Las Vegas, NV 89101 Attorneys for Defendants 15 IT IS SO ORDERED: 16 Dr. Smith’s Motion for a final two-day Extension of 7 Time to File his Reply to his Motion to Seal or Strike until April 11, 2021 is hereby granted.

Ling tm re br 19 TH foes _— UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: April , 2021