Free Motion for Extension of Time - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2

ANDREW P. THOMAS MARICOPA COUNTY ATTORNEY By: JOSEPH I. VIGIL State Bar No. 018677 [email protected] REBECCA SALISBURY State Bar No. 022006 [email protected] Deputy County Attorneys MCAO Firm No. 00032000

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 v.

CIVIL DIVISION Security Center Building 222 North Central Avenue, Suite 1100 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2206 Telephone (602) 506-8541 Attorneys for Defendant Riddle IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Nathaniel Hearn Plaintiff, NO. CV03-1924-PHX-MHM (MEA) DEFENDANT RIDDLE'S FIRST MOTION FOR ENLARGMENT OF TIME (First Request)

Joseph M. Arpaio, et al., Defendants.

Defendant Riddle, by and through undersigned counsel, and pursuant to Rule 6, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby requests that the Court allow the Defendant, and Plaintiff, to have additional time (approximately 45-60 days)

Case 2:03-cv-01924-MHM-MEA

Document 301

Filed 12/29/2006

Page 1 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

to submit their dispositive motions and Final Joint Pretrial Statement. 1 Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint on December 17, 2004. This Court screened that Complaint and it was served on the Defendant on April 13, 2006. Defendant filed his Answer on June 9, 2006. The Court issued its

Scheduling Order requiring Dispositive Motions to be due on December 1, 2006 and the Proposed Joint Pretrial Order and all other Motions to be submitted by January 5, 2007. In August Plaintiff filed a Motion to Enlarge Time so he could file a Second Amended Complaint. He was given until October 3, 2006 to do so. Undersigned counsel did not realize that the date for the submission of dispositive motions had passed until yesterday when a review of the file was taking place. For some reason the dispositive motion date was not calendared properly. 2 Undersigned counsel intends on filing a Motion for Summary

Judgment in this matter to dispose of this matter, or at the very least, limit the number of issues that would need to be tried. It is expected that this Motion could be filed within 45 days. As such, Defendants request that the Court extend the dispositive motion deadline for a period of 45 days ­ which would be on or about November 25, 2006. Additionally, undersigned counsel requests that the Court extend the

deadline for the submission of the Joint Pretrial Statement by the parties to 60

1

21 22

If there is a dispositive motion filed, which the Defendants intend to file, then the deadline for the submission of the Joint Pretrial Statement would be submitted within 60 days of the Court's ruling on the dispositive motion. 2 Defense counsel acknowledges that a copy of the scheduling order was in the file.

Case 2:03-cv-01924-MHM-MEA

Document 302

Filed 12/29/2006

Page 2 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

days after the Court has ruled on the dispositive motions. This is the first extension of these timeframes that is being requested. The Court did previously enlarge the time to file a Second Amended Complaint at the Plaintiff's request. There is no likelihood that the Plaintiff will be

prejudiced by the extension of these deadlines and this request is being made in good faith and is not meant to unduly delay these proceedings. Rather, by allowing the dispositive motion to be filed the Court will conserve time and narrow issues for trial, if trial is necessary. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this __29th__ day of December 2006. ANDREW P. THOMAS MARICOPA COUNTY ATTORNEY

BY: 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 s/Michele Haney 22 ORIGINAL of the foregoing E-FILED and copy MAILED this _29th_ day of December 2006 to: Nathaniel Hearn, #66155 ASPC Florence ­ MU Meadows Unit ­ Eyman #8A-32 P.O. Box 3300 Florence, AZ 85232 Plaintiff Pro Per

s/Joseph I. Vigil JOSEPH I. VIGIL REBECCA SALISBURY Attorneys for Sgt. Riddle

CJ04-117 S:\COUNSEL\Civil\Matters\CJ\2004\Hearns CJ04-094\Pleadings\M for Enlargment of Time.doc

Case 2:03-cv-01924-MHM-MEA

Document 303

Filed 12/29/2006

Page 3 of 3