Carley v. Gentry

Attorney General CHRISTOPHER M. GUY (Bar No. 15239) Deputy Attorney General State of Nevada Office of the Attorney General 555 East Washington Avenue Suite 3900 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 (702) 486-3326 (phone) (702) 486-3773 (fax) Email: [email protected] Attorneys for Defendants James Dzurenda, Charles Daniels, Sheryl Foster, Jo Gentry, Tanya Hill, Gabriela Najera, Dwight Neven, Cynthia Ruiz, Kim Thomas, and Patrick Vejar LISA A. RASMUSSEN, Esq.

10 Law Offices of Kristina Wildeveld & Associates East Charleston Blvd. Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 (702) 222-0007 (phone) (702) 222-0001 (fax) Email: [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 16 DISTRICT OF NEVADA ELIZABETH CARLEY, Case No. 2:17-cv-02670-MMD-VCF 18 Plaintiff, JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER v. TO EXTEND THE JOINT PRETRIAL ORDER DEADLINE FROM APRIL JO GENTRY, et al., 25, 2022, TO MAY 25, 2022 (Second Request) 21 Defendants.

22 Plaintiff Elizabeth Carley, by and through counsel, Lisa. A. Rasmussen, and Defendants, Sheryl Foster, Patrick Vejar, Jo Gentry, James Dzurenda, Charles Daniels, Gabriela Najera, Tanya Hill, Dwight Neven, Cynthia Ruiz, and Kim Thomas, by and through counsel, Aaron D. Ford, Nevada Attorney General, and Christopher M. Guy, Deputy Attorney General, of the State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney General, hereby submit a Joint Stipulation And Order To Extend The Joint Pretrial Order Deadline From May 25, 2022, to Monday, June 27, 2022.

2 The Parties hereby move to extend the Joint Pretrial Order deadline from May 25, 2022, to June 27, 2022 (32 days). Good cause exists in this case because the Parties have resumed settlement discussions and may be able to resolve this matter without further litigation. Additionally, both counsel for Plaintiff and Defendants assumed litigation responsibilities for this matter post summary judgment briefing. Plaintiff’s counsel appeared in this matter as recent as January 25, 2022, for the purpose of a settlement conference.1 ECF No. 163. The Parties agree that additional time is necessary to review the discovery records produced in this matter to submit a Joint Pretrial Order.

10 II. LAW AND ARGUMENT 11 A. Law 12 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)2 provides: 13 (1) In General. When an act may or must be done within a specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend the time: 14 (A) with or without motion or notice if the court acts, or if a request is made, before the original time or its extension 15 expires; or (B) on motion made after the time has expired if the party 16 failed to act because of excusable neglect.

17 FED. R. CIV. P. 6(b)(1).

18 The United States Supreme Court has recognized, “Rule 6(b) gives the court extensive flexibility to modify the fixed time periods found throughout the rules, whether the enlargement is sought before or after the actual termination of the allotted time.” Lujan v. Nat'l Wildlife Fed., 497 U.S. 871, 906 n. 7 (1990) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) (emphasis added); see also Perez-Denison v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan of the Nw., 868 F. Supp. 2d 1065, 1079 (D. Or. 2012) (citing and quoting Lujan, 497 This settlement conference was more akin to a global settlement conference as two of Plaintiff’s cases were at issue: the other case being 2:17-cv-02346-MMD-CLB.

2 LR IA 6-1(a): “A motion or stipulation to extend time must state the reasons for the extension requested and must inform the court of all previous extensions of the subject deadline the court granted.” Further, a “stipulation or motion seeking to extend the time to file an opposition or reply to a motion, or to extend the time fixed for hearing a motion, must state in its opening paragraph the filing date of the subject motion or the date of the subject hearing.” LR IA 6-1(c).

2 liberally construed to effectuate the general purpose of seeing that cases (and other disputed issues) are decided on the merits. Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 4 1253, 1258 (9th Cir. 2010). Regarding “Good cause,” it is a non-rigorous standard that has been construed broadly across procedural and statutory contexts. Id. (citing several circuits Venegas–Hernandez v. Sonolux Records, 370 F.3d 183, 187 (1st Cir. 2004); Thomas v. Brennan, 961 F.2d 612, 619 (7th Cir. 1992); Lolatchy v. Arthur Murray, Inc., 816 F.2d 951, 954 (4th Cir. 1987)).

9 Consequently, requests for extensions of time made before the applicable deadline has passed should “normally ... be granted in the absence of bad faith on the part of the party seeking relief or prejudice to the adverse party.” Ahanchian, 624 F.3d at 1259 (quoting 4B Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1165 (3d ed. 2004).

14 B. Agreement 15 On May 20, 2022, the Parties meet and conferred about the status of the case. The Parties renewed settlement discussions as Plaintiff’s circumstances have changed now that she resides in transitional housing. The Parties agreed that Plaintiff’s new circumstance should be considered for settlement purposes and present new opportunities for settlement that were not considered at the March 24, 2022, settlement conference. The Parties do not act in bad faith.

21 Additionally, the Parties seek additional time to work together to draft the Joint Pretrial Order. The Parties are working together to determine what records were produced prior to counsels’ appearances in this matter. The additional time is necessary to the drafting and agreement to a joint order. Thus, the Parties request an extension of the Joint Pretrial Order deadline of May 25, 2022, to June 27, 2022.

26 /// /// /// 1 CONCLUSION 2 For the foregoing reasons, the Parties request an extension of the Joint Pretrial || Order deadline of May 25, 2022, to June 27, 2022.

5 DATED this 20th day of May 2022 DATED this 20th day of May 2022 7 By: /s/_ Lisa A. Rasmussen By: /s/ Christopher M. Guy LISA A. RASMUSSEN, Esq. CHRISTOPHER M. GUY 8 Law Offices of Kristina Wildeveld & Deputy Attorney General Associates Office of the Nevada Attorney General 9 550 E. Charleston Blvd. 555 E. Washington Avenue, #3900 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 10 Attorneys for Plaintiff Attorneys for Defendants IT IS SO ORDERED. id UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 5-23-2022 DATE: