Golden et al v. Mentor Capital et al, No. 2:2015cv00176 - Document 146 (D. Utah 2017)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER Granting 140 Motion for Second Extension. Dispositive motions due by 12/15/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells on 11/29/17. (dla)
Download PDF
Golden et al v. Mentor Capital et al Doc. 146 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION GENA GOLDEN, an individual and SUSAN GOLDEN, an individual, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SECOND EXTENSION Plaintiffs, v. Case No. 2:15-CV-00176-JNP MENTOR CAPITAL, INC., a Delaware corporation, LABERTEW & ASSOCIATES, a Utah limited liability company, and Michael L. Labertew, an individual, District Judge Jill N. Parrish Magistrate Judge Brooke Wells Defendants. MENTOR CAPITAL, INC., a Delaware corporation, Third-Party Plaintiff v. RICHARD GOLDEN, an individual, and SCOTT VAN RIXEL, an individual, Third-Party Defendants Defendant Mentor Capital, Inc. moves the court for a second extension of the deadline to file dispositive motions.1 The current deadline was November 17, 2017 and on November 14, 2017, prior to the expiration of that deadline, Mentor filed its motion seeking an extension until December 15, 2017. The court will grant the motion. 1 Docket no. 140 The primary reason offered by Mentor in support of its motion is the discovery delays that have been a part of this action. The court agrees there have been some discovery delays. For example, discovery toward Third-Party Defendant Mr. Van Rixel was stayed for a time. 2 In addition the court has entered multiple orders regarding other discovery issues. 3 In opposition Plaintiffs point to the delay in filing the motion, other commitments by Plaintiffs’ counsel and alleges that Mentor has had this missing discovery for months so an extension is not warranted. In addition, Plaintiffs argue Mentor’s filing of a motion for reconsideration of the court’s order granting Plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment indicates that it already has whatever information it needs to file dispositive motions. The court finds Plaintiffs cursory arguments unpersuasive and not supported by the record. Under Federal Rule 6(b) the court may, for good cause shown, extend the time for certain deadlines. 4 Here, the court finds good cause based upon the record and Mentor’s arguments. Accordingly, Mentor’s Motion for Extension of Time is GRANTED. 5 DATED this 29 November 2017. Brooke C. Wells United States Magistrate Judge 2 Docket no. 107. 3 Docket no. 105, docket no. 120, docket no. 127. 4 Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b). 5 Docket no. 140. 2