Santacruz v. Daniels

Attorney General LEO T. HENDGES (Bar No. 16034) Senior Deputy Attorney General State of Nevada Office of the Attorney General 1 State of Nevada Way, Ste. 100 Las Vegas, Nevada 89119 (702) 486-3795 (phone) (702) 486-3768 (fax) Email: [email protected] Attorneys for Defendant Dr. Terence Agustin, Dr. Henry Landsman, Betty Omandac, Symour Omandac, Dr. Francisco Sanchez, and Dr. Kenneth Williams 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 DISTRICT OF NEVADA GABRIEL SANTACRUZ, Case No. 2:23-cv-00258-APG-BNW 13 Plaintiff, STIPULATION AND ORDER TO v. EXTEND THE RESPONSIVE PLEADING DEADLINE IN THE CHARLES DANIELS, et.al., SCHEDULING ORDER ECF NO. 93 16 Defendants (FIRST REQUEST) 18 Defendants, Dr. Terence Agustin, Dr. Henry Landsman, Betty Omandac, Symour Omandac, Dr. Francisco Sanchez, and Dr. Kenneth Williams, by and through counsel, Aaron D. Ford, Nevada Attorney General, and Leo T. Hendges, Senior Deputy Attorney General, of the State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney General, and Plaintiff, Gabriel Santacruz (Santacruz), by and through counsel, Rene L. Valladares, Federal Public Defender, Ryan Norwood, Assistant Federal Public Defender, and Christopher P. Frey, Assistant Federal Public Defender, hereby stipulate and agree to a 30-day extension of the Responsive Pleading deadline in the Scheduling Order, which is currently set to expire on April 10, 2025.

26 ECF No. 93 at 3:7. This is the parties’ first request to extend the Responsive Pleading deadline for this case. The parties believe there is good cause for this Court to grant an extension of the Responsive Pleading deadline. LR IA 6-1; LR 26-3.

2 This Court entered an order on February 16, 2025, granting in part the Defendants’ motion to dismiss Santacruz’s second amended complaint. ECF No. 89. Following entry of this order, the parties were required to submit a proposed discovery plan and scheduling order by March 5, 2025. ECF No. 90. That discovery plan and scheduling order was entered by this Court on March 6, 2025, setting a deadline for the submission of a Third Amended Complaint (TAC) as well as a responsive pleading. ECF No. 93 at 3:5-7. Santacruz filed his TAC on March 20, 2025, pursuant to that order. ECF No. 94.

9 The parties have been engaged in settlement discussions, including the recent exchange of offers and counteroffers. Based on these settlement discussions, the parties believe a 30-day extension of the deadline for the submission of Defendants’ responsive pleading is appropriate. If the parties can resolve the matter through settlement discussions, the submission of further pleadings would not be necessary.

14 II. LEGAL STANDARD 15 The Local Rules of Practice in this District require that “[a] motion or stipulation to extend any date set by the discovery plan, scheduling order, or other order must, in addition to satisfying the requirements of LR IA 6-1, be supported by a showing of good cause for the extension.” LR 26-3. “A motion or stipulation to extend a deadline set forth in a discovery plan must be received by the court no later than 21 days before the expiration of the subject deadline.” Id. “A request made within 21 days of the subject deadline must be supported by a showing of good cause.” Id. 22 “[C]ourts resolve” a “motion to amend the scheduling order” by referring to the “good cause” standard outlined in Rule 16(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Chavez-Herrera v. Shamrock Foods Company, Case No. 2:19-cv-01327-GMN- BNW, 2024 WL 3718661, at *1 (D. Nev. May 13, 2024) (quoting Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 608 (9th Cir. 1992). “Rule 16(b)’s ‘good cause’ standard primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” Chavez-Herrera, 2024 WL 3718661, at *1 (quoting Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d at 609). Courts look diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” Id. Although prejudice to the opposing party may also be considered, the focus of the inquiry is on the movant's reasons for seeking modification. Id. “If that party was not diligent, the inquiry should end.” Id. 5 “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.” LR IA 6-1(a). “Immediately below the title of the motion or stipulation there also must be a statement indicating whether it is the first, second, third, etc., requested extension . . . ” Id. III. STATEMENT OF GOOD CAUSE 11 There is good cause to extend the Responsive Pleading deadline. The parties have been discussing settlement terms and the matter could potentially be settled without further Court intervention. Extending the Responsive Pleading deadline for 30-days will provide the parties with an opportunity to devote their time to these settlement discussions, instead of litigating the underlying allegations of this lawsuit.

16 The parties believe this requested extension serves the interests of Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 as settlement of the matter would resolve the entirety of the lawsuit while preserving resources of all stakeholders. There would be no prejudice to either party, as there is agreement the requested extension is in the parties’ best interests.

20 /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// ||IV. CONCLUSION 2 Based on the foregoing, good cause exists, and the parties respectfully request that ||this Court extend the Responsive Pleading deadline by 30 days. The new Responsive || Pleading deadline would be May 9, 2025.

6 || DATED this 9th day of April, 2025. DATED this 9th day of April, 2025.

7 || AARON D. FORD Attorney General ° /s/ Leo T. Hendges /s/ Ryan Norwood || LEO T. HENDGES (Bar No. 16034) RYAN NORWOOD (N. H. Bar No. 15604) 10 Senior Deputy Attorney General Assistant Federal Public Defender Attorneys for Defendants Attorneys for Plaintiff 13 ORDER 14 The Responsive Pleading Deadline listed in ECF No. 93 at 3:7 is hereby extended 30 || days and will now be due May 9, 2025.

17 IT IS SO ORDERED: 18 DATED: April 10, 2025 Lg wl nO basin 20 UNITEDSTATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE