Opinion
Case No. 2:14-cv-00019-GMN-PAL
07-30-2015
HOWARD ACKERMAN, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al. Defendants.
ADAM PAUL LAXALT Attorney General MICHELINE N. FAIRBANK Senior Deputy Attorney General Nevada Bar No. 8062 Bureau of Litigation Public Safety Division 100 N. Carson Street Carson City, NV 89701-4717 Tel: 775-684-1196 Fax: 775-684-1275 Email: mfairbank@ag.nv.gov Attorneys for Defendants Catherine Cortez Masto, Gregory Cox, Ross Miller, Nevada Department Of Corrections, and Brian Sandoval
ADAM PAUL LAXALT
Attorney General
MICHELINE N. FAIRBANK
Senior Deputy Attorney General
Nevada Bar No. 8062
Bureau of Litigation
Public Safety Division
100 N. Carson Street
Carson City, NV 89701-4717
Tel: 775-684-1196
Fax: 775-684-1275
Email: mfairbank@ag.nv.gov
Attorneys for Defendants Catherine Cortez Masto,
Gregory Cox, Ross Miller, Nevada Department
Of Corrections, and Brian Sandoval
DEFENDANTS' UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO FILE JOINT STATUS REPORT
Defendants, Catherine Cortez Masto, Gregory Cox, Ross Miller, Nevada Department of Corrections, and Brian Sandoval, by and through counsel, Adam Paul Laxalt, Attorney General of the State of Nevada, and Micheline N. Fairbank, Senior Deputy Attorney General, hereby move for an enlargement of time to submit a Joint Status Report pursuant to Court Order (#25). This Motion is made pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B) and supported by the following memorandum of points and authorities.
This number refers to the Court's docket number.
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
I. INTRODUCTION AND FACTUAL SUMMARY
On July 10, 2015, this Court issued an order requiring the parties to submit a Joint Status Report notifying the Court of the status of this matter. (#25) As there has been no initiation of any prosecution by Plaintiff in this action since Plaintiff submitted his Notice to Proceed Pro Se (#24), Defense counsel anticipated that Plaintiff would initiate contact with Defendants upon receipt of the Court's Order (#25) prior to the July 20, 2015, deadline. Additionally, counsel for Defendants was absent from her office on July 14th, 16th-20th. Upon counsel's return, there was no correspondence or communication from Plaintiff regarding this Court's Order (#25). As such, on July 22, 2015, counsel for Defendants' was able to have a telephone conference with Plaintiff regarding this Court's Order. During that phone conference, Plaintiff expressed an interest in engaging in informal settlement discussions. Based upon that interest, counsel for Defendants indicated that informal settlement discussions could take place. Plaintiff requested that the parties seek a sixty day enlargement of time to file a Joint Status Report where the parties could then inform the Court whether those communications were successful.
Accordingly, Defendants herby move the Court for a sixty-day enlargement of time to submit a Joint Status Report.
II. DISCUSSION
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B), the Court may extend the time upon which an act must be done "on motion made after the time has expired if the party failed to act because of excusable neglect." Here, Defendants assert that due to the inadvertence and oversight, the deadlines set by the Court in its Order were inadvertently missed due to travel out of the office for other matters; accordingly, the deadline for the Acceptance of Service passed without Defendants taking appropriate action.
The United States Supreme Court has interpreted the term excusable neglect under the rules governing bankruptcy proceedings to "encompass both simple, faultless omissions to act and, more commonly, omissions caused by carelessness." Pioneer Inv. Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates Ltd. Partnership, 507 U.S. 380, 388 (1993). In Committee for Idaho's High Desert, Inc. v. Yost, 92 F.3d 814 (9th Cir. 1996), the Ninth Circuit extended the Pioneer, analysis of excusable neglect to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b).
Here, the Court issued its Order directing the parties to submit a Joint Status Report on July 10, 2015 (#25). Plaintiff represents that he did not receive a copy of this Court's Order. Counsel for Defendants was absent from her office three out of the six business days which the parties had to meet and confer and has been engaged in trial preparations for a matter commencing on July 23, 2015. As Plaintiff did not initiate contact, Defendants' then sought to contact and communicate with Plaintiff. However, due to inadvertence and excusable neglect, these matters were not resolved prior to the July 20, 2015, deadline for filing the Joint Status Report.
However, the parties have conferred and have agreed to initiate informal settlement communications. And pursuant to Plaintiff's request, Defendants hereby seek a sixty day enlargement of time to permit the parties to engage in these informal communications and then file a Joint Status Report identifying whether such communications were effective or whether the parties are prepared to proceed with the action.
III. CONCLUSION
Based upon the foregoing, Defendants' respectfully request a sixty day enlargement of time, up to and including, September 18, 2015, to file the Joint Status Report.
DATED this 22nd day of July, 2014.
ADAM PAUL LAXALT
Attorney General
By: /s/_________
MICHELINE N. FAIRBANK
Senior Deputy Attorney General
Bureau of Litigation
Public Safety Division
Attorney for Defendants
IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/_________
Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge
United States District Court
DATED: 07/30/2015.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify I am an employee of the Office of the Attorney General, State of Nevada, and that on this 22nd day of July, 2015, I caused to be deposited for mailing a copy of the foregoing DEFENDANTS' UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO FILE JOINT STATUS REPORT, addressed as follows: Howard Ackerman
7500 W. Lake Mead #260
Las Vegas, NV 89128
/s/_________
An Employee of the Office of
The Attorney General