1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 DENNIS BAHAM, 4 Plaintiff, Case No.: 2:25-cv-00912-GMN-EJY 5 vs. ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION 6 OFFICE OF THE EX-OFFICIO LAS VEGAS TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE REPLIES 7 TOWNSHIP, et al.,

8 Defendants. 9 Pending before the Court is the Joint Motion to Extend Time to File Replies, (ECF No. 10 58), filed by Defendants Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, NewRez LLC d/b/a 11 Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing (“NewRez”), McCarthy & Holthus, Kristen Schuler-Hintz, Las 12 Vegas Township Constable’s Office, and Elana Graham. Plaintiff Dennis Baham filed a 13 Response, (ECF No. 59), to which Defendants replied, (ECF No. 61). For good cause 14 appearing, the Court GRANTS the Joint Motion to Extend Time to File Replies. 15 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1), a court may extend the time to file 16 documents for “‘good cause,’ a non-rigorous standard that has been construed broadly across 17 procedural and statutory contexts.” Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc.,

, 1259 18 (9th Cir. 2010). Requests made for an extension of time before the applicable deadline has 19 passed should “normally. . . be granted in the absence of bad faith on the part of the party 20 seeking relief or prejudice to the adverse party.” Id. (quoting 4B Charles Alan Wright & Arthur 21 R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1165 (3d ed. 2004)). 22 Defendants filed the instant motion on November 3, 2025, one day before their Replies 23 were originally due, and argued that an extension was necessary because counsel for NewRez 24 was traveling out of the country. (See Joint Mot. Extend Time 1:21–2:2, ECF No. 58). In his 25 Response, Plaintiff argued that he would be prejudiced by an extension of the deadline to file 1 || Replies because the case would be delayed. (See Resp. at 2, ECF No. 59). However, the Court 2 || does not find that Plaintiff would be prejudiced by the granting of this motion. Moreover, the 3 ||record does not indicate, nor does Plaintiff allege bad faith by Defendants. 4 || Accordingly, 5 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Joint Motion to Extend Time to 6 || File Replies, (ECF No. 58), is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ 7 || Replies in support of the pending Motions to Dismiss (ECF Nos. 38, 42, 44, 45) are now due by 8 || November 18, 2025. 9 DATED this _17 day of November, 2025. 10 Y, D Gloria M. arro, District Judge United Stdtey’ District Court 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Page 2 of 2