Joshua Marquise Myles v. Lt. Fono, et al.

Attorney General JOHN REGALIA (Bar No. 16969) Deputy Attorney General State of Nevada Office of the Attorney General 1 State of Nevada Way, Suite 100 Las Vegas, Nevada 89119 (702) 486-3106 (phone) (702) 486-3768 (fax) Email: [email protected] Attorneys for Defendants Kristy Fonoimoana, and Zachariah Zobie 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 DISTRICT OF NEVADA JOSHUA MARQUISE MYLES, Case No. 2:23-cv-02055-RFB-DJA 12 Plaintiff, v. STIPULATION TO EXTEND DISPOSITIVE MOTION DEADLINE LT. FONO, et al., 15 Defendants.

16 Plaintiff Joshua Myles and Defendants Kristy Fonoimoana, and Zachariah Zobie, by and through counsel, Aaron D. Ford, Nevada Attorney General, and John Regalia, Deputy Attorney General, of the State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney General, hereby stipulate to extending the deadline to dispositive motions.

20 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I. BACKGROUND AND RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY 22 On October 27, 2025, the Court granted defendants’ motion for an extension of the dispositive deadlines due to the ongoing litigation revolving around Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend. ECF No 35. The Court has issued a report and recommendation denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend. This Order has not yet been adopted and Plaintiff has indicated he is attempting to file an objection. Due to both this ongoing litigation as well as Plaintiff’s recent release from the institution parties believe good cause exists to extend the dispositive motion deadline.

2 To demonstrate good cause, the parties must show “that, even in the exercise of due diligence, [the parties were] unable to meet the timetable set forth in the order.” Cruz v. City of Anaheim, CV1003997MMMJEMX, 2011 WL 13214312, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2011) (citing Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002); Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992)). Prejudice to the opposing party is a factor in determining good cause, though lack of prejudice is “not a prerequisite.” Id. 9 The parties in this matter are working diligently to resolve this matter. Plaintiff expressed to Defendant he is currently attempting to file an objection to the Courts Report and Recommendation relating to his denial of motion to Amend. This report and recommendation has not yet been adopted by the court. Plaintiff further expressed that during his transition out of the facility he lost possession of all the discovery produced in this case. After a Meet and Confer with Plaintiff, Defendant is currently in the process of resending all of the discovery in the case to Myles. An extension should allow Plaintiff to receive and review the discovery as well as provide time to resolve any final issues prior to the filing of dispositive motions.

18 III. PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR COMPLETING ALL REMAINING 19 DISCOVERY AND FILING OF DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS 20 The Parties propose the following schedule for the filing of any dispositive motions: The deadline to file any dispositive motions will be extended 45 days from December 05, 2025, to January 16, 2026.

23 /// /// /// /// /// /// 1 CONCLUSION 2 Based on the foregoing, good cause exists, and the parties respectfully request that 3 Court extend the deadlines as outlined above.

4 DATED this 1st day of December, 2025. DATED this st/day of December 2025.

5 AARON D. FORD Attorney General Zs Zi 6 ‘ ZZ Z\| 7 4 Myles, /s/ John Regalia dintiff, Pro Se _ 8 John Regalia (Bar No. 16969) Deputy Attorney General 9 Attorneys for Defendants 11 ORDER 12 IT IS SO ORDERED: 13 DATED this 5th day of January, 2026.

16 DANIEL J, ALBREGTS 17 United States Magistrate Judge