Opinion
2:20-cv-02109-CDS-VCF
08-08-2022
EDWARD E. SEELY, Plaintiff, v. NEVADA STATE PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION, INDIVIDUALS BRENTON MARSHALL AND JOHN/JANE DOES (1-20); NDOT INDIVIDUALS MARIO GOMEZ P.E., JOHN/JANE DOES (1-20), Defendants.
AARON D. FORD Attorney General SUSAN K. STEWART (BAR No. 9914) Deputy Attorney General STEVEN M. GOLDSTEIN (Bar. No. 6318) Senior Deputy Attorney General Attorneys for the Nevada State Public Works Division and State of Nevada, ex rel. Department of Transportation AARON D. FORD Attorney General Steven M. Goldstein (Bar No. 6318) Senior Deputy Attorney General Attorneys for State of Nevada, ex rel. Department of Transportation and Defendant, Mario Gomez Edward E. Seely Plaintiff, In Proper Person
AARON D. FORD
Attorney General
SUSAN K. STEWART (BAR No. 9914)
Deputy Attorney General
STEVEN M. GOLDSTEIN (Bar. No. 6318)
Senior Deputy Attorney General
Attorneys for the Nevada State Public Works Division and State of Nevada, ex rel. Department of Transportation
AARON D. FORD
Attorney General
Steven M. Goldstein (Bar No. 6318)
Senior Deputy Attorney General
Attorneys for State of Nevada, ex rel. Department of Transportation and Defendant, Mario Gomez
Edward E. Seely
Plaintiff, In Proper Person
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO MOTION TO DISMISS [ECF. 42] AND MOTION TO DISMISS OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION TO QUASH [ECF. 44]
Pursuant to Local Rule IA 6-1, Defendant, Benton Marshall of the Nevada State Public Works Division, (erroneously sued as Brenton Marshall) by and through counsel, Aaron D. Ford, Attorney General of the State of Nevada, and Susan K. Stewart, Deputy Attorney General/Construction Law Counsel, and Defendant, Mario Gomez, through counsel, P.E. Steven M. Goldstein, Senior Deputy Attorney General, Attorney for Defendant, Mario Gomez of the State of Nevada ex rel. Department of Transportation sued solely in his individual capacity, and Plaintiff Edward E. Seely, in proper person, respectfully submits the following Stipulation and Order to Extend Time to Respond to Motion to Dismiss [ECF. 42], and Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion to Quash [ECF. 44]. This Stipulation for such an extension is entered by the parties in good faith and not for the purpose of delay.
A. Reasons why the Deadlines Were not Satisfied
Defendant, Benton Marshall (erroneously sued as Brenton Marshall), filed a Motion to Dismiss [ECF. 42] (hereinafter “Motion to Dismiss [ECF. 42]”) on July 7, 2022; Mario Gomez, filed a Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion to Quash [ECF. 44] (hereinafter “Motion to Dismiss or Motion to Quash [ECF. 44]”) on July 7, 2022. Plaintiff contacted counsel requesting an extension, necessitated by a conflict in his medical treatment. Unfortunately, for various reasons, Plaintiff's messages were not received. After receipt of [ECF. 50], Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time of 30 days to Respond to Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss [ECF. 42] and Motion to Dismiss or Motion to Quash [ECF. 44], counsel immediately contacted Plaintiff. After communications with Plaintiff and the filing of Plaintiffs Motion for Extension of Time of 30 Days to Respond to Defendants Motion to Dismiss [ECF. 42] and Motion to Dismiss or Motion to Quash [ECF. 44], the parties have agreed and stipulated to, an extension of deadlines to file the oppositions and replies.
B. Proposed Schedule
The parties propose that the current deadlines be extended as follows:
1. Plaintiff's Opposition Briefs - The current deadline for Plaintiff's Opposition to Motion to Dismiss [ECF.42] was July 22, 2022. The current deadline for Plaintiff's Opposition to Motion to Dismiss or Motion to Quash [ECF. 44] is July 29, 2022. All parties have agreed to and the requested extension and the new deadline for Plaintiff's Opposition to both Motion's [ECF.42] and [ECF. 44] is September 2, 2022 .
2. Defendants' Reply Briefs - The current deadline for Defendant's Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss [ECF.42] was July 29, 2022. The current deadline for Defendants Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss or Motion to Quash [ECF. 44] is August 5, 2022, with the requested extension the new deadline for both Defendant's Reply in Support of Motion [ECF. 42] and [ECF. 44] is September 9, 2022
For the foregoing reasons, the Defendants, Benton Marshall of the Public Works Division, Mario Gomez, and Plaintiff, Edward Seely, hereby stipulate to the above extensions.
AARON D. FORD
Attorney General
Susan K. Stewart (Bar No. 9914)
Deputy Attorney General
Attorneys for Defendants, Public Works Division and Defendant Benton Marshall erroneously sued as Brenton Marshall
AARON D. FORD
Attorney General
Steven M. Goldstein (Bar No. 6318)
Senior Deputy Attorney General
Attorneys for State of Nevada, ex rel. Department of Transportation and Defendant, Mario Gomez
Edward E. Seely
Plaintiff, In Proper Person
ORDER
Based on the foregoing stipulation of the parties, the deadlines outlined above shall be extended as follows:
1. The current deadline for Plaintiff's Opposition to Motion to Dismiss [ECF.42] was July 21, 2022. The current deadline for Plaintiff's Opposition to Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Motion to Quash [ECF. 44] is July 29, 2022. All parties have agreed to and the requested extension and the new deadline for Plaintiff's Opposition to Motion's [ECF.42] and [ECF. 44] is September 2, 2022.
2. The current deadline for Defendant's Reply in Support of Motion [ECF.42] was July 29, 2022. The current deadline for Defendants Reply to Opposition to Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Motion to Quash [ECF. 44] is August 5, 2022, with the requested extension the new deadline for Defendant's Reply in Support of Motion [ECF. 42] and [ECF. 44] is September 9, 2022.
IT IS ORDERED that the new deadline for Plaintiff's Opposition to Motion's [ECF.42] and [ECF. 44] is September 2, 2022. This new deadline is effective, nun pro tunc, to July 21, 2022.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the new deadline for Defendant's Reply in Support of Motion [ECF. 42] and [ECF. 44] is September 9, 2022. This new deadline is effective, nun pro tunc, to July 29, 2022.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Dismiss or Quash (ECF No. 50) is DENIED as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Stipulation and Order to Extend Time to Respond to Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Dismiss or Quash (ECF No. 52) is STRICKEN as a duplicate.