Mark Forsberg, Esq., NSB 4265
Rick Oshinski, Esq., NSB 4127
OSHINSKI & FORSBERG, LTD.
1-775-301-4250 | F 775-301-4251
rick@oshinskiforsberg.com
mark@oshinskiforsberg.com
Attorneys for Appellant
IN
THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF
Supreme Court Case No. 82559
District Court Case No. 09OC005791B
APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS
REZA ZANDIAN, A/K/A GOLAMREZA ZANDIANJAZI, A/K/A GHOLAM REZA ZANDIAN, A/K/A REZA JAZI, A/K/A J. REZA JAZI,
A/K/A G. REZA JAZI, A/K/A GHONOREZA ZANDIAN JAZI, an individual,
Appellant,
vs.
JED MARGOLIN, an individual,
Respondent.
Appellant, Reza Zandian, A/K/A Golamreza Zandianjazi, A/K/A Gholam Reza Zandian, A/K/A Reza Jazi, A/K/A J. Reza Jazi, A/K/A G. Reza Jazi, A/K/A Ghonoreza Zandian Jazi (“Appellant” and/or “Zandian”), by and through his attorneys, Mark Forsberg, Esq. and Oshinski & Forsberg, Ltd., respectfully requests
-1-
an extension of nine (9) days, to and including June 25, 2021, to file his Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Appellant’s Untimely Appeal for Lack of Jurisdiction. Respondent filed his motion to dismiss on June 9, 2021. Appellant’s opposition to the motion to dismiss was due June 16, 2021 and was submitted to the clerk of this court for filing on June 23, 2021.
No extensions of time have previously been requested by or granted to Appellant during this appeal. Respondent telephonically requested and was granted an extension of time to file a response to Appellant’s Motion to Take Judicial Notice. That response is now due on June 25, 2021.
The basis for this request is that an error by Appellant’s counsel in determining the due date of the opposition to the motion caused the untimely filing of the opposition to the motion. NRAP 26(b)(1)(A) provides that for good cause shown, the court may extend the time for performing any act or permit any act to be done after the time prescribed expires. Rule 1(c) provides that the rules are to be construed liberally to “secure the proper and efficient administration of the business and affairs of the courts and to promote and facilitate the administration of justice by the courts.”
In this case, it would be unjust to the Appellant to disallow the filing of his Opposition to a motion that seeks dismissal of the appeal based on an incorrect understanding by Respondent of when the notice of appeal was filed by Appellant, who properly and timely filed his notice without the assistance of counsel. Ironically, Appellant did timely file his notice of appeal as set forth in the untimely filed opposition to the motion filed by counsel. It is hereby submitted that good cause for extending the time to file the opposition may be found, not in an excuse for counsel’s error, but in preserving a meritorious opposition to a motion that, if unchallenged, would terminate Appellant’s appeal. Unlike Respondent’s motion to dismiss, which implicates the jurisdiction of this court where a notice of appeal is untimely, permitting the opposition to that motion to be filed does not involve a
-2-
jurisdictional question and will promote the goals of Rule 1(c) by assuring the administration of justice for the Appellant; conversely allowing the filing of the opposition will not significantly impair the proper and efficient administration of the business and affairs of this Court.
In the event this motion is granted, Appellant will immediately re-file the opposition to the motion to dismiss the appeal.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the foregoing, Appellant respectfully requests this Court to enter its order permitting Appellant to file his opposition to Respondent’s motion to dismiss this appeal.
Dated this 23rd day of June, 2021.
OSHINSKI & FORSBERG, LTD.
By /s/ Mark Forsberg, Esq.
Mark Forsberg, Esq., NSB 4265
Attorneys for Appellant
-3-
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that and that on June 23, 2021, I filed a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion For Extension of Time To File Response To Motion To Dismiss with the Clerk of the Court through the Court’s CM/ECF system, which sent electronic notification to all registered users as follows:
Arthur A. Zorio
Matthew Francis
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schrek
Attorneys for Respondent
/s/ Linda Gilbertson
Linda Gilbertson