9 8 06 mirch 641 doc 41

Upload: nevadagadfly

Post on 14-Apr-2018

220 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

  • 7/29/2019 9 8 06 Mirch 641 Doc 41

    1/9

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    26

    27

    28 1

    MIRCH & MIRCHKEVIN J. MIRCH, ESQ.

    NV Bar No. 000923MARIE C. MIRCH, ESQ.

    NV Bar No. 6747320 Flint StreetReno, Nevada 89501(775) 324-7444

    Attorneys for Plaintiff

    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

    DISTRICT OF NEVADA

    KEVIN J. MIRCH, ESQ.

    Plaintiff,v. Case No. 3:05-CV-000641-RLH-RAM

    BRUCE BEESLEY, ROB BARE,BRIDGET ROBB PECK,DONALD CHRISTENSEN, STATE BAROF NEVADA, DOES I -XA-Z Corporations,

    Defendant.___________________________________ /

    MOTION FOR STAY OF ACTION INCLUDING PLAINTIFFSFILING OF OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO

    DISMISS (Fed.R.Civ.P. 12 (b)(1)) ANDOPPOSITION TO MOTION TO

    DISMISS PLAINTIFFS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT(FIRST REQUEST)

    COMES NOW, Plaintiff, KEVIN MIRCH, ESQ., by and through his counsel

    of record, MIRCH & MIRCH, MARIE C. MIRCH, ESQ., and moves this Court for

    stay of this action, including Plaintiffs filing of his Opposition to Motion to Dismiss

    (Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1)) and Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs First

    Amended Complaint. These Oppositions are each due to be filed on September 13,

    2006. This is the first request for a stay of this matter, and is made to protect,

    Plaintiff, Kevin Mirchs Fifth Amendment Rights due to the fact that he is the subject

    Case 3:05-cv-00641-RLH-RAM Document 41 Filed 09/08/06 Page 1 of 4

  • 7/29/2019 9 8 06 Mirch 641 Doc 41

    2/9

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    26

    27

    28 2

    of a criminal action.

    This motion is made and based upon U.S. District Court Local Rule 6-1, and

    supported by the accompanying points and authorities, affidavit, exhibits and

    pleadings on file herein.

    DATED this 8 day of September, 2006th

    MIRCH & MIRCH

    By:______/s/__________________

    MARIE C. MIRCH, ESQ.SBN Nev.: 6747320 Flint StreetReno, NV 89501(775) 324-7444Attorney for Plaintiff

    Case 3:05-cv-00641-RLH-RAM Document 41 Filed 09/08/06 Page 2 of 4

  • 7/29/2019 9 8 06 Mirch 641 Doc 41

    3/9

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    26

    27

    28 3

    POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

    Plaintiff is respectfully moving this Court for an Order granting Plaintiff a stay

    of the present action, including his filing of Opposition to Motion to Dismiss

    (Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1)) and Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs First

    Amended Complaint. These Oppositions are each due to be filed on September 12,

    2006. This Court has graciously granted an extension of time to September 12, 2006

    to oppose these motions.

    However, on August 23, 2006, a criminal complaint was filed against Plaintiff,

    Kevin Mirch in the Justice Court of Reno Township in and for the County of Washoe.

    See exhibit A attached. In the motions to dismiss, the Defendants discuss many of

    the factual allegations presented by Mr. Mirch in his Complaint in this matter. Mr.

    Mirch is entitled to consult his criminal attorney, David Houston, as to whether he can

    address these allegations, as it is believed that so doing could very well violate Mr.

    Mirchs Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. The criminal charges

    against Mr. Mirch are related to some of the improprieties of which Mr. Complains in

    his First Amended Complaint. Therefore, out of an abundance of caution, and to

    preserve Mr. Mirchs Constitutional rights, Mr. Mirch respectfully requests a stay of

    this matter until the criminal action is resolved.

    LEGAL ANALYSIS

    Local Rule 6-1 of the U.S. District Court governs and allows necessary

    extensions of time as is set forth below:

    Local Rule 6-1. Requests for Extension of Time, provides in part:

    (a) Every motion or stipulation to extend time shall inform thecourt of any previous extensions granted and state the reasons for theextension requested. A request made after the expiration of the specified

    period shall not be granted unless the moving party, attorney, or otherperson demonstrates that the failure to act was the result of excusableneglect. Immediately below the title of such motion or stipulation thereshall also be included a statement indicating whether it is the first,second, third, etc., requested extension, i.e. . . .

    Case 3:05-cv-00641-RLH-RAM Document 41 Filed 09/08/06 Page 3 of 4

  • 7/29/2019 9 8 06 Mirch 641 Doc 41

    4/9

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    26

    27

    28 4

    (b) The court may set aside any extension obtained in contraventionof this rule.(c) A stipulation or motion seeking to extend the time to file anopposition or final reply to a motion, or to extend the time fixed forhearing a motion, must state in its opening paragraph the filing date ofthe motion.

    Furthermore, F.R.C.P. 6(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows

    necessary enlargements of time as is set forth below:

    F.R.C.P 6(b) ENLARGEMENT. When by these rules or by a noticegiven thereunder or by order of the court an act is required or allowed to

    be done at or within a specified time, the court for cause shown may atany time in its discretion (1) with or without motion or notice order the

    period enlarged if request is therefor made before the expiration of theperiod originally prescribed or as extended by a previous order, or (2)upon motion made after the expiration of the specified period permit theact to be done where the failure to act was the result of excusable neglect;

    but it may not extend the time for taking any action under Rules 50(b)and (c)(2)52(B), 59(b), (d) and (e), and 60(b), except to the extent andunder the conditions stated in them.

    The request made by this motion is an indefinite extension or stay of these proceedings

    to protect Mr. Mirchs Fifth Amendment rights.

    CONCLUSION

    Based upon the foregoing, it is respectfully requested that this Court grant a stay

    of this action pending resolution of the criminal matter.

    DATED this 8 day of September, 2006.th

    LAW OFFICE OF MIRCH & MIRCH

    By:_________/s/________________MARIE C. MIRCH, ESQ.

    NV SBN: 6747320 Flint StreetReno, NV 89501Attorneys for Plaintiff

    Case 3:05-cv-00641-RLH-RAM Document 41 Filed 09/08/06 Page 4 of 4

  • 7/29/2019 9 8 06 Mirch 641 Doc 41

    5/9

    Case 3:05-cv-00641-RLH-RAM Document 41-2 Filed 09/08/06 Page 1 of 5

  • 7/29/2019 9 8 06 Mirch 641 Doc 41

    6/9

    Case 3:05-cv-00641-RLH-RAM Document 41-2 Filed 09/08/06 Page 2 of 5

  • 7/29/2019 9 8 06 Mirch 641 Doc 41

    7/9

    Case 3:05-cv-00641-RLH-RAM Document 41-2 Filed 09/08/06 Page 3 of 5

  • 7/29/2019 9 8 06 Mirch 641 Doc 41

    8/9

    Case 3:05-cv-00641-RLH-RAM Document 41-2 Filed 09/08/06 Page 4 of 5

  • 7/29/2019 9 8 06 Mirch 641 Doc 41

    9/9

    Case 3:05-cv-00641-RLH-RAM Document 41-2 Filed 09/08/06 Page 5 of 5