Opinion
2:23-cv-00925 -CDS-BNW
07-25-2023
STANLEY RANDOLPH CRANE, an individual, Plaintiff, v. CLARK COUNTY, a political subdivision organized under the law of the State of Nevada; DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, a political subdivision organized under the law of the State of Nevada; DISTRICT ATTORNEY STEVEN WOLFSON, an individual; DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY MELANIE H. MARLAND, an individual; DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY WILLIAM J. MERBACK, an individual; DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SKYLER SULLIVAN, an individual; DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY BRITTNI LEIGH GRIFFITH, an individual; DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY PARKER BROOKS, an individual, and DOES I through X, inclusive, Defendant.
STEVEN B. WOLFSON DISTRICT ATTORNEY JEFFREY S. ROGAN Deputy District Attorney State Bar No. 010734 JOEL K. BROWNING Deputy District Attorney State Bar No. 014489 Attorney for Clark County and Clark County District Attorney Defendants
STEVEN B. WOLFSON DISTRICT ATTORNEY JEFFREY S. ROGAN Deputy District Attorney State Bar No. 010734 JOEL K. BROWNING Deputy District Attorney State Bar No. 014489 Attorney for Clark County and Clark County District Attorney Defendants
DEFENDANTS' VERIFIED MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE A RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT
BRENDA WEKSLER, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
COME NOW Defendants CLARK COUNTY, CLARK COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, STEVEN B. WOFLSON, DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY MELANIE H. MARLAND, DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY WILLIAM J. MERBACK, DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SKYLER SULLIVAN, DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY BRITTNI LEIGH GRIFFITH, and DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY PARKER BROOKS (hereinafter collectively “Defendants”), through their attorney District Attorney STEVEN B. WOLFSON, by Deputy District Attorney JOEL K. BROWNING, and hereby move this Court for an extension of time to answer or file a responsive motion to Plaintiff's complaint.
This Motion is based upon all the pleadings and papers on file herein, the attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities, and the oral arguments of counsel at the time of the hearing in this matter, if any.
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
I.
NATURE OF MOTION
On or around July 19, 2023, this case was unexpectedly assigned to the undersigned due to case shuffling in the wake of a sudden leave of absence for an attorney in our office. Counsel for Defendants reached out to Plaintiff's counsel immediately and requested an extension of time to respond to the complaint until August 7, 2023, to give the undersigned sufficient time to review the complaint, speak to the respective defendants, and prepare an answer and/or responsive motion. See correspondence between counsel, attached hereto as Exhibit A.
The undersigned also agreed to not file a motion to quash for the individual deputy district attorneys which had been improperly served and to waive service for any individual deputy district attorneys who were improperly served or yet to be served in exchange for an extension and in the interests of judicial economy.
Counsel for Plaintiff agreed and, in conferring with the Court, it was advised that the instant extension could only be granted by Motion and not by stipulation and order.
Therefore, Defendants bring the instant motion for an extension of time to respond to Plaintiff's Complaint until August 7, 2023, and to memorialize the agreement between the parties waiving service for Defendants DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY MELANIE H. MARLAND, DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY WILLIAM J. MERBACK, DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SKYLER SULLIVAN, DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY BRITTNI LEIGH GRIFFITH, and DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY PARKER BROOKS.
The undersigned avers that the instant motion is not brought for an improper purpose, to harass, to cause unnecessary delay, or to needlessly increase the cost of litigation.
II.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
“The district court's denial of an extension of time pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b) is reviewed for abuse of discretion.” Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1258 (9th Cir. 2010).
“Requests for extensions of time made before the applicable deadline has passed should ‘normally ... be granted in the absence of bad faith on the part of the party seeking relief or prejudice to the adverse party.'” Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1259 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing 4B Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1165 (3d ed. 2004)).
III.
LEGAL ARGUMENT
A. Defendants sought an Extension of Time Prior to the Deadline, their Request for an Extension is not Made in Bad Faith, and Plaintiffs will not be Prejudiced by an Extension
“Requests for extensions of time made before the applicable deadline has passed should ‘normally ... be granted in the absence of bad faith on the part of the party seeking relief or prejudice to the adverse party.'” Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1259 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing 4B Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1165 (3d ed. 2004)).
Here Defendants requested an extension of time prior to the deadline to respond to the complaint and did so for good cause due to unforeseen circumstances. Furthermore, as Defendants are also willing to waive service, Plaintiff is not prejudiced, and the interests of judicial economy are furthered by this extension.
Therefore, the Honorable Court should grant Defendants' Motion for an Extension of Time to Respond to the Complaint until August 7, 2023.
IV.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, Defendants humbly request the Honorable Court grant an extension of time to respond to Plaintiff's complaint until August 7, 2023.
ORDER
IT IS SO ORDERED.
EXHIBIT A
(Correspondence)
(Exhibit Omitted)