Opinion
Case No: 2:11-cv-00944-PMP-PAL
08-22-2011
CITY OF NORTH LAS VEGAS, Plaintiff, v. CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA; THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Acting By and Through the Secretary of the Air Force; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE; and MICHAEL B. DONLEY, Secretary of the Air Force, Defendants.
DANIEL G. BOGDEN United States Attorney BLAINE T. WELSH Assistant United States Attorney Nevada Bar No. 4790 JUSTIN E. PINGEL Assistant United States Attorney Nevada Bar No. 10186 Attorneys for the United States. Patrick G. Byrne Richard Gordon Casey G. Perkins Snell & Wilmer Attorneys for City of North Las Vegas Christopher D. Figgins Laura Rehfeldt Clark County District Attorney's Office Civil Division Attorneys for Clark County Nevada Matthew J. Christian Alan J. Lefebvre Kolesar & Leatham Attorneys for Clark County Nevada
DANIEL G. BOGDEN
United States Attorney
BLAINE T. WELSH
Assistant United States Attorney
Nevada Bar No. 4790
JUSTIN E. PINGEL
Assistant United States Attorney
Nevada Bar No. 10186
Attorneys for the United States.
UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
(First Request)
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1) and Local Rule 6-1, Defendants, the United States of America, the United States Department of the Air Force, and Michael B. Donley, Secretary of the Air Force (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "United States") request that this Court extend the deadline for the United States to answer, move, or otherwise respond to the City's First Amended Complaint to be fourteen (14) days after the Court rules on the City's Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint. Additionally, the United States hereby requests that the Court grant an extension of fourteen (14) days for the United States to respond to the City's Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint (Document No. 62). Opposition to this motion is currently due on August 25, 2011. The United States' Opposition would now be due on September 8, 2011.
The primary reason for this request is that the parties are currently in the midst of settlement discussions and would like to finalize these attempts before moving forward with litigation. This motion is based upon the attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities.
Respectfully submitted this 19th day of August 2011.
DANIEL G. BOGDEN
United States Attorney
JUSTIN E. PINGEL
Assistant United States Attorney
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
I Introduction and Background
On June 9, 2011, the City of North Las Vegas ("City") sued Clark County, Nevada and the United States (Document No. 1). On August 8, 2011, the City filed its Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint (Document No. 62). On August 9, 2011, this Court entered an order that declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Clark County's counterclaims and the City's declaratory judgment action against Clark County (Document No. 63).
In the time since the Court's August 9, 2011 Order declining to exercise jurisdiction over Clark County, the City and the United States have engaged in settlement discussions. Those discussions are ongoing. It would save the time and resources of both this Court and the parties, if the extensions sought herein are granted. It would further be a waste of time and resources to answer the City's currently pending Complaint given the possibility that it will be superseded by an Amended Complaint.
II Good Cause Exists for the Requested Extension
Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1) provides, in part:
When an act may or must be done within in a specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend the time,
(A) with or without motion or notice if the court acts, or if a request is made, before the original time or its extension expires; . . .
Good cause exists to extend the deadlines requested herein. Allowing the United States additional time to file their Opposition to the City's Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint, and subsequently extending the date by which the United States must answer the City's Complaint, will allow the parties to continue settlement discussions and seek a resolution to this matter. This extension will save the time and resources of the Court and the parties.
The United States respectfully submits that these reasons demonstrate good cause and amply support its request that these two deadlines be extended. III Consultation with Opposing Counsel Counsel for the City does not oppose the requested extension.
IV Conclusion
The United States certifies that this motion is not submitted solely for the purpose of delay or for any other improper purpose. Rather, this Motion is submitted to allow the parties to continue their settlement discussions. For the foregoing reasons, the date by which the United States must oppose the City's Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint is extended to September 8, 2011, and the date by which the United States must answer the City's Complaint is extended to fourteen (14) days following this Court's order on the City's Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint.
Respectfully submitted this 19th day of August 2011.
DANIEL G. BOGDEN
United States Attorney
JUSTIN E. PINGEL
Assistant United States Attorney
IT IS SO ORDERED:
PHILIP M. PRO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
PROOF OF SERVICE
I, Justin E. Pingel, AUSA, certify that the following individual was served with the UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME on this date by the below identified method of service:
Electronic Case Filing
Patrick G. Byrne
Richard Gordon
Casey G. Perkins
Snell & Wilmer
Attorneys for City of North Las Vegas
Christopher D. Figgins
Laura Rehfeldt
Clark County District Attorney's Office Civil Division
Attorneys for Clark County Nevada
Matthew J. Christian
Alan J. Lefebvre
Kolesar & Leatham
Attorneys for Clark County Nevada
JUSTIN E. PINGEL
Assistant United States Attorney