Semper v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department ( 2024 )

1 CHRISTOPHER M. PETERSON, ESQ. Nevada Bar No.: 13932 2 SADMIRA RAMIC Nevada Bar No.: 15984 3 JACOB SMITH, ESQ Nevada Bar No.: 16324 4 AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF NEVADA 4362 W. Cheyenne Ave. 5 North Las Vegas, NV 89032 Telephone: (702) 366-1226 6 Facsimile: (702) 718-3213 Emails: peterson@aclunv.org 7 ramic@aclunv.org jsmith@aclunv.org 8 ROBERT L. LANGFORD, ESQ. 9 Nevada Bar No.: 3988 MATTHEW J. RASHBROOK, ESQ. 10 Nevada Bar No.: 12477 ROBERT L. LANGFORD & ASSOCIATES 616 South Eighth Street Las Vegas, NV 89101 11 Telephone: (702) 471-6565 Facsimile: (702) 991-4223 12 Email: robert@robertlangford.com Email: matt@robertlangford.com 13 14 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Phillip Semper, Corey Johnson, Ashley Medlock, Michael Green, Demarlo Riley, Clinton Reece, and Lonicia Bowie 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 16 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 17 PHILLIP SEMPER, et al., 18 Case No.: 2:20-cv-01875-JCM-EJY Plaintiffs, 19 vs. PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION TO 20 LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE EXTEND DEADLINE FOR OPPOSITION DEPARTMENT, et. al, TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR 21 SUMMARY JUDGMENT 22 Defendants. (First Request) 23 24 Plaintiffs submit the following motion to extend the time to file an opposition to Defendants 25 motion for summary judgment by 7 days. This would modify the due date from April 15, 2024, to 1 following Declaration of Christopher Peterson, and the papers and pleadings already on file herein. 2 Defendants’ counsel has represented that they do not oppose the requested extension. 3 4 DATED: Apil 11, 2024 5 AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION 6 OF NEVADA 7 8 /s/ Christopher Peterson CHRISTOPHER M. PETERSON, ESQ. 9 Nevada Bar No.: 13932 SADMIRA RAMIC 10 Nevada Bar No.: 15984 JACOB SMITH, ESQ 11 Nevada Bar No.: 16324 AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF NEVADA 12 4362 W. Cheyenne Ave. North Las Vegas, NV 89032 13 Telephone: (702) 366-1226 Facsimile: (702) 366-1331 14 Emails: peterson@aclunv.org ramic@aclunv.org 15 jsmith@aclunv.org 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 DECLARATION OF CHRISTOPHER M. PETERSON ESQ. 2 I, Christopher M. Peterson, hereby declare as follows: 3 1. I am duly licensed to practice law in the State of Nevada and have personal knowledge of and 4 I am competent to testify concerning the facts herein. 5 2. I represent the Plaintiffs in the above-captioned matter as lead counsel. 6 3. I am the Legal Director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada. 7 4. I make this declaration in support of Plaintiffs Motion to Extend Deadline for Opposition to 8 Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment. 9 5. Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment in this matter on March 25, 2024. [ECF 10 No. 142] 11 6. The current deadline for Plaintiffs opposition to Defendants motion for summary judgment is 12 April 15, 2024. 13 7. Plaintiffs request 7 days additional time to complete the opposition to Defendants motion for 14 summary judgment changing this deadline to April 22, 2024. 15 8. Plaintiffs believe there is good cause to extend this deadline for the following reasons: 16 a. I emailed Jacqueline Nichols, counsel for Defendants, on April 11, 2024, asking if 17 they would oppose this motion to extend time; Ms. Nichols responded stating they had 18 no opposition to this motion. 19 b. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is 59 pages, see [ECF No. 142], almost 20 twice as long as a typical motion for summary judgment; accordingly, counsel needs 21 more time to review the arguments, conduct relevant research, and draft responses. 22 c. Due to the length of the Defendant’s motion, Plaintiffs may need to request to exceed 23 the page limits for the opposition to Defendants motion for summary judgment. 24 d. As Legal Director for the ACLU of Nevada, I represented the appellees in an oral 25 argument before the Nevada Supreme Court on April 9, 2024, for State of Nevada 1 Board of Pharmacy v. Cannabis Equity and Inclusion Community, et al., Case No. 2 85756, which took significant time to prepare for as the case involves multiple issues 3 of first impression under Nevada law. 4 e. I filed a reply in support of a motion for preliminary injunction and response to a 5 motion to dismiss in McAllister et al. v. Clark County, 2:24-cv-00334-JAD-NJK, in 6 the United States District Court of Nevada on March 26, 2024, and March 28, 2024, 7 respectively. 8 f. Due to the Defendants’ filings on April 5, 2024, and April 9, 2024, related to 9 Defendants’ opposition to Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment, see [ECF No. 10 149]; [ECF No. 152]; [ECF No. 153], it is unclear to Plaintiffs if Plaintiffs’ reply in 11 support of their motion for summary judgment is due on April 19, 2024, or April 23, 12 2024. Plaintiffs are drafting motions to address the situation and seek clarity regarding 13 the Plaintiffs’ obligations. 14 g. Plaintiffs reply in support of the motion to reconsider [ECF No. 141] is due on April 15 15, 2024. 16 17 Pursuant to NRS § 53.045, I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of 18 Nevada that the foregoing is true and correct. 19 20 DATED: April 11, 2024 21 /s/ Christopher Peterson CHRISTOPHER M. PETERSON, ESQ 22 23 24 25 1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 2 Plaintiffs are seeking a seven-day extension from the current deadline of April 15, 2024 to April 3 22, 2024, to file an opposition to Defendants motion for summary judgment [ECF No. 142]. 4 A motion to extend time filed before the deadline of the motion it seeks to extend must be 5 supported by a showing of good cause. Local Rule IA 6-1; Local Rule 26-3; Fed. Rules Civ. Proc. 6 6(b)(1)(A); Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 610 (9th Cir. 1992). Good cause 7 under FRCP 6 is not a rigorous or high standard. Ahanchion v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 8 1259 (9th Cir. 2010). Absent bad faith, a timely extension sought under FRCP 6 will often be granted. 9 Id. at 1259. 10 The good cause analysis rests on a party’s diligence in adhering to the deadlines set by the court. 11 Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). This measure of diligence 12 considers the diligence displayed throughout the entire case. Williams v. James River Grp. Inc., 627 13 F. Supp. 3d 1172, 1177 (D. Nev. 2022). The degree of prejudice to the opposing party may also be 14 considered. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). Plaintiffs have 15 consistently met the deadlines set forth by this Court throughout this matter, and as Defendants’ 16 counsel have stated they would not oppose this motion, it does not appear that they will suffer any 17 prejudice. 18 Courts have found that an attorney’s “conflicting professional engagements” can satisfy a 19 finding of good cause to extend a deadline. Johnson v. Barrett, No. 2:17-cv-02304-RFB-BNW, 2021 20 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201338, at *2 (D. Nev. Oct. 16, 2021) (quoting Canup v. Miss. Valley Barge Line 21 Co., 31 F.R.D. 282, 283 (D. Pa. 1962)). Courts have also found good cause for an extension when the 22 size of the responsive document is extensive, the party requesting extension has multiple conflicting 23 deadlines, and the opposing party does not object to the extension. Atlp v. Corecivic, Inc., No. 2:21- 24 cv-02072-JCM-EJY, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2955, at *3 (D. Nev. Jan. 2, 2024). Plaintiffs’ counsel 25 have had multiple professional engagements since Defendants’ filed their motion for summary 1 judgment, including argument before Nevada’s highest state court on a case involving multiple issues 2 of first impression and filing deadlines related to substantive motions pending before the United 3 States District Court for Nevada in McAllister et al. v. Clark County, limiting counsels’ capacity. 4 Other reasons for good cause exist. First, Plaintiffs will need to file additional motions related 5 to Defendants’ filings on April 5, 2024, and April 9, 2024, to clarify what documents Plaintiffs will 6 need to respond to and when. Second, as parties received permission from the Court to exceed page 7 limits on their respective motions for summary judgment, Plaintiffs are responding to a motion for 8 summary judgment that is significantly longer than is typically permissible under LR. Naturally, the 9 longer motion requires more time to review, research, and respond to. While Plaintiffs may need to 10 draft and file a motion to exceed page limit in support of their response, counsel is also using the 11 extension to prevent as much excess as possible. 12 Plaintiffs contacted Jacqueline Nichols, counsel of record for Defendants via email. Ms. 13 Nichols represented that the Defendants had no opposition to the requested extension. 14 15 16 17 18 [REMAINDER OF PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK] 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ] For the above reasons, Plaintiffs request pursuant to this unopposed motion that the deadlin 2 | for Plaintiffs opposition to Defendants motion for summary judgment be modified seven days fro 3 |] its current deadline of April 15, 2024, to April 22, 2024. 4 5 DATED: April 11, 2024 6 AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF NEVADA 7 8 /s/ Christopher Peterson 9 CHRISTOPHER M. PETERSON, ESQ. Nevada Bar No.: 13932 10 SADMIRA RAMIC Nevada Bar No.: 15984 JACOB SMITH, ESQ 1] Nevada Bar No.: 16324 AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES 12 UNION OF NEVADA 4362 W. Cheyenne Ave. 13 North Las Vegas, NV 89032 Telephone: (702) 366-1226 14 Facsimile: (702) 366-1331 Emails: peterson@aclunv.org 15 ramic@aclunv.org jsmith@aclunv.org 16 17 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED: 20 itus 0. Atala, 71 UNITED: STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 22 DATED: April 12, 2024 23 24 25 1 I hereby certify that I electronically filed the foregoing Motion to Extend Time with the 2 Clerk of the Court for the United States District Court by using the court’s CM/ECF system on April 3 11, 2024. I further certify that all participants in the case are registered CM/ECF users and that 4 service will be accomplished on all participants by: 5 6 CM/ECF 7 Electronic mail; or 8 US Mail or Carrier Service 9 10 11 /s/Christopher Peterson 12 An employee of ACLU of Nevada 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25