VIEWS: 940 PAGES: 3 POSTED ON: 11/1/2011
Case: 11-16751 10/31/2011 ID: 7948869 DktEntry: 4-1 Page: 1 of 3 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NO. 11-16751 RIGHTHAVEN LLC, Appellant v. WAYNE HOEHN, Appellee MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE OPENING BRIEF PURSUANT TO CIRCUIT RULE 31-2.2(b) Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Case No. 2:11-cv-00050-PMP-RJJ SHAWN A. MANGANO, LTD. Shawn A. Mangano, Esq. firstname.lastname@example.org Nevada Bar No. 6730 8367 West Flamingo Road, Suite 100 Las Vegas, Nevada 89147 Phone: (702) 304-0432 Fax: (702) 922-3851 Attorney for Appellant Righthaven LLC Case: 11-16751 10/31/2011 ID: 7948869 DktEntry: 4-1 Page: 2 of 3 Appellant Righthaven LLC (“Righthaven”) hereby moves for an extension of time to file its opening brief pursuant to Circuit Rule 31-2.2(b) (the “Motion”). The Motion requests a 30-day extension of time for Righthaven to file its opening brief in this appeal. If the Motion is granted, Righthaven will file its opening brief on or before November 28, 2011. Righthaven’s counsel originally requested a telephonic 14-day extension of time to file its opening brief in this matter on October 27, but was advised that its opening brief was not due under November 28, 2011. Upon further inquiry, it appears that the opening brief deadline provided was for an associated appeal in this action concerning an award of attorneys’ fees and costs (Case No. 11-16995). Righthaven discovered this apparent misunderstanding today, October 31, 2011, which is one business day following the October 28, 2011 filing deadline for its opening brief. Upon contacting the Court, Righthaven was advised to file this Motion pursuant to Circuit 31-2.2(b) since a telephonic extension of time could not be granted since the deadline to file its opening brief had passed. Righthaven’s request for an extension of time is supported by diligence and substantial need. First, Righthaven sought a telephonic extension of time in a timely manner but was advised that its opening brief was not due until November 28, 2011. Thus, absent this confusion, Righthaven would have been entitled to an automatic 14-day extension of time to submit its opening brief pursuant to Circuit ! "! Case: 11-16751 10/31/2011 ID: 7948869 DktEntry: 4-1 Page: 3 of 3 Rule 31-2.2(a). Second, Righthaven’s request is supported by substantial need in that it currently has two separate opening briefs due on November 14, 2011 (Case No. 11-16776 and Case No. 11-16358). Additionally, during this same time period, Righthaven’s counsel is scheduled to undergo a surgical procedure for which it is estimated that he will be recovering outside of the office for approximately one week. Finally, Righthaven has been contacted by potential amicus counsel who anticipates moving the Court for permission to appear and submit substantive briefing in this appeal. Accordingly, the foregoing circumstances justifies granting Righthaven’s request for a 30-day extension of time to file its opening brief. Dated this 31st day of October, 2011. SHAWN A. MANGANO, LTD. By: /s/ Shawn A. Mangano SHAWN A. MANGANO, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 6730 8367 West Flamingo Road, Suite 100 Las Vegas, Nevada 89147 Attorney for Appellant Righthaven LLC ! #!
"Dkt 4-1 Mtn to Extend"