ORIGINAL. Appellant, Respondent. MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME TO FILE ANSWERING BRIEF. and as an agent for Retina Consultants of Nevada (hereinafter

Transcription

1 1 ORIGINAL ALVERSON, TAYLOR, MORTENSEN, NELSON & SANDERS DAVID J. MORTENSEN, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 00 DIANE CARR, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 000 ANTHONY KESTNER, ESQ. Nevada Bar No West Charleston Boulevard Las Vegas, Nevada (0) -000 Attorneys for Respondent, ROGER M. SIMON, M.D. 01 U, COURT FILED AUG JA ETTE M. BLOOM C SUPREME COURT BY DEP CLERK IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA ANYA S. DUKE, vs. Appellant, ROGER M. SIMON, M.D.; individually ) and as an agent for RETINA CONSULTANTS OF NEVADA, a Nevada corporation, CASE NO. 1 District Court Case No. A00 Respondent. MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME TO FILE ANSWERING BRIEF COMES NOW, Respondent, Roger M. Simon, M.D., individually and as an agent for Retina Consultants of Nevada (hereinafter "Dr. Simon"), and hereby request an enlargement of time to file Appellee's Answering Brief. ^jcei V O AUG JANETTE M. BLOOM CLERK OF SUPREME COURT DEPUTY CLERK A..., r1 c "

2 do 1 This Motion is made pursuant to NRAP (b), and based upon the pleadings and papers on file herein, the Points and Authorities filed herewith, and any oral argument which this Court deems necessary. DATED this gam`day of August, 001. ALVERSON, TAYLOR, MORTENSEN, NELSON & SANDERS 9 10 z 1 O 1 z o zo^ 1 1 9; za F 1 z 19 0 By' DAVID J. MORTENSEN, ESQ. Nevada Bar. No. 00 DIANE CARR, ESQ Nevada Bar No. 000 ANTHONY KESTNER, ESQ. Nevada Bar No West Charleston Boulevard Las Vegas, Nevada 911 Attorneys for Respondent POINTS AND AUTHORITIES NATURE OF MOTION On August, 001, Appellees filed a Motion to Strike Appellant's Opening Brief and to Stay the Briefing Schedule. In that Motion, Appellees seek to strike Appellant's entire brief, or, in the alternative, Appellees move to strike any issues not properly appealed. Resolution of the Motion to Strike will have dramatic effects on Appellees' Answering Brief, and on judicial economy. Depending upon this Court's decision, Appellees may not be required to submit an Answer Brief at all, or at least, the scope of the Answer brief may be significantly reduced. Thus, Appellees

3 respectfully request that the deadline for submitting an Answering Brief be extended until after a decision on the Motion to Strike has been rendered by this Court. ISSUES PRESENTED I. WHETHER THIS COURT SHOULD ENLARGE THE TIME FOR APPELLEE TO FILE AN ANSWERING BRIEF PURSUANT TO NEVADA RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE (b)? STATEMENT OF FACTS Appellees filed a Motion to Strike and Stay the Briefing Schedule on August, 001, based upon Ms. Duke's failure to find counsel to certify her appeal brief. That Motion also sought to strike many of the issues raised by Ms. Duke in her brief as those issues are not properly before this Court. Appellees' Answering Briefing is currently due on August 0, 001. LEGAL ARGUMENTS I THIS COURT SHOULD ENLARGE THE TIME FOR APPELLEE TO FILE AN ANSWER BRIEF BECAUSE APPELLEES HAVE SHOWN GOOD CAUSE WHY SUCH AN ENLARGEMENT OF TIME SHOULD BE GIVEN. Nevada Rule of Appellate Procedure (b) states The court for good cause shown may upon motion enlarge the time prescribed by these rules or by its order for doing any act, or may permit an act to be done after the expiration of such time; but the court may not enlarge the time for filing a notice of appeal. In this case, Appellees have shown good cause because resolution of the Motion to Strike will have a significant impact on Appellees' Answering Brief and upon judicial economy. First, depending upon this Court's ruly regarding Appellee's Motion to

4 Strike, an answering brief may be unnecessary. Second, if this Court allows Ms. Duke's opening brief but narrows the issues, Appellee's Answering Brief can be simplified. Finally, if the Answering Brief can be simplified, judicial economy will be greatly affected. As such, Appellees cannot complete his brief without having clarification of the issues, including but not limited to whether Appellees must file an Answer at all since Ms. Duke violated this Court's order by proceeding in propria persona without leave of this Court. Additionally, it would be unfair to Appellees to require an Answering Brief on issues which may not be properly before this Court. As such, determining the issues on appeal prior to requiring an Answering Brief could simplify the appeal and narrow the scope of any oral argument before this Court. Further, this Court may strike Ms. Duke's opening brief in its entirety because she filed it in proper person, thereby, violating this Court's Order prhibiting Ms. Duke from doing so. Thus, allowing additional time to file an Answering Brief will serve both judicial economy and fairness. Finally, Appellees are not seeking the extension of time to delay the appellate process. Appellees have legitimate questions regarding the appropriateness of Ms. Duke's opening brief regarding the issues discussed in her brief as well as the appropriateness of her filing a brief at all. Also, Appellees seek only a two week extension after a decision on the Motion to Strike to file an Answer Brief. As such, Appellees are not seeking a lengthy extension of time to file an Answer Brief.

5 1 In sum, Appellees have shown good cause as to why the Answer deadline of August 0, 001, should be enlarged until after this Court has had the opportunity to consider and render a decision on Appellees' Motion to Strike Appellant's Opening Brief. CONCLUSION Based upon the foregoing, these Appellees respectfully request that this Honorable Court enlarge the time for Appellees to file an Answer Brief pursuant to Nevada Rule of Appellate Procedure (b). Appellees respectfully request that the Answer Brief be due two weeks after a decision on Appellees Motion to Strike. Appellees have shown good cause why this enlargement of time be granted and respectfully request that this Motion for an Enlargement of Time be granted. DATED this day of August, 001. ALVERSON, TAYLOR, MORTENSEN, NELSON & SANDERS By DAVID J. MORTENSEN, ESQ. Nevada Bar. No. 00 DIANE CARR, ESQ Nevada Bar No. 000 ANTHONY KESTNER, ESQ. Nevada Bar No West Charleston Boulevard Las Vegas, Nevada 911 Attorneys for Respondent

6 1 9 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING I hereby certify that I placed a true and correct copy of the foregoing MOTION TO STRIKE APPELLANT, AND TO STAY BRIEFING SCHEDULE prepaid and addressed to the following: Anya S. Duke 101 Chambliss Drive Las Vegas, Nevada 910 Appellant n Pro Per on this day of August, 001. ANYA DUKE ' S OPENING BRIEF in the United States Mail, postage 10 z z 0 1 n employee of ALVERSON, TAYLOR, MORTENSEN, NELSON & SANDERS F^^ V. U vj r r 1 b j:\clients\10\sup Ct II\MTS Opening Brief