Opinion
3:22-CV-00265-MMD-CSD
08-23-2022
JAMES RICHARDSON, Plaintiff, v. GERALD W. ROSE, Defendant.
RUSBY LAW, PLLC CHRISTOPHER RUSBY Attorney for Plaintiff RICHARD CARNELL BAKER (Pro Hac Vice) Counsel for Plaintiff, James Richardson JASON M. FRIERSON United States Attorney HOLLY A. VANCE Attorney for Defendant
RUSBY LAW, PLLC
CHRISTOPHER RUSBY
Attorney for Plaintiff
RICHARD CARNELL BAKER
(Pro Hac Vice)
Counsel for Plaintiff, James Richardson
JASON M. FRIERSON
United States Attorney
HOLLY A. VANCE
Attorney for Defendant
STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
Plaintiff James Richardson and Defendant Gerald W. Rose hereby stipulate and agree: 1) Defendant may have a 23-day extension of time, from August 29, 2022 to September 21, 2022, to respond to Plaintiff's Motion to Remand, and 2) Plaintiff may have a 5-day extension of time, from September 28, 2022 to October 3, 2022 to file a reply in support of his motion to remand.
The extensions are warranted for four reasons. First, defense counsel's office has lost a number of attorneys and staff. As a result, defense counsel is handling a higher-than-normal caseload. Second, only a limited number of attorneys and support staff work in defense counsel's office at any given time due to the pandemic, thereby slowing the time it takes to process and complete required tasks. Third, defense counsel's calendar has been busier than normal with multiple filing deadlines in several cases, including two before the Ninth Circuit. Fourth, Plaintiff's counsel has a busy schedule as well and he too is facing multiple deadlines in other cases. Under the circumstances, good cause exists to extend the deadline for Defendant to file his response to Plaintiff's Motion to Remand and for Plaintiff to file his reply. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b)(1)(A) (“When an act may or must be done within a specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend the time.. .with or without motion or notice if the court acts, or if a request is made, before the original time or its extension expires[.]”) (emphasis added).
This is the first request for an extension of time by either party regarding Plaintiff's Motion to Remand. See LR IA 6-1(a) (must advise of previous extensions). The parties have contacted each other and neither opposes the other's extension request. This stipulation is made in good faith and not for the purpose of undue delay.
IT IS SO ORDERED.