Emergency Motion

Mark E. Ferrario, Esq.
Nevada Bar No. 1625

Tami D. Cowden, Esq.
Nevada Bar No. 8994
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP Electronically Filed
Feb 12 2019 08:57 a.m.
10845 Griffith Peak Dr., Ste. 600 Elizabeth A. Brown
Las Vegas, NV 89135 Clerk of Supreme Court
Telephone: (702) 792-3773
Facsimile: (702) 792-9002
Counsel for Appellants
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
DALE ZUSI; VICKI DELATORRE, and Case No. 77035

SYDNEY GORDON,
Appellants, STIPULATED EMERGENCY

v. MOTION TO EXTEND TIME
TO FILE OPENING BRIEF
The GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF AND APPENDIX, OR IN THE
NEVADA, in his official capacity; and ALTERNATIVE, TO STAY ALL
the ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN THIS
STATE OF NEVADA, in his official MATTER
capacity,
Second request
Respondents. 1
EMERGENCY MOTION UNDER NRAP 27(E)

RELIEF REQUESTED BY FEBRUARY 13, 2019
On an emergency basis, the parties hereby jointly request that the time for
Appellants to file their Opening Brief and Appendix be extended from February 19,
2019 to April 1, 2019. In the alternative, the parties request the Court stay all
1
Pursuant to NRAP 43(c)(2), and due to the changes in the holders of the public
office holders, the caption has been changed to refer only to the offices.
Docket 77035 Document 2019-06479

proceedings until the earlier of the end of the current legislative session or the filing
of a joint motion to lift the stay. This request is made under NRAP 26(b) and
NRAP 31(b).
The parties acknowledge that their previous stipulation for an extension of
time was denied on February 11, 2019, for failure to “include the reasons why an
extension is necessary,” as required by NRAP 31(b). See Order Denying Motion
(Feb. 11, 2019) (“Because the parties offer no cause for the requested extension, the
motion is denied.”). This motion explains that there are, in fact, compelling reasons
for an extension or, in the alternative, for a stay—including reasons that have
become more apparent since the parties’ stipulation was filed.
In short, an extension or stay is warranted by the unusual circumstances
surrounding this appeal—which concerns the potential severance of language from
a ballot initiative adopted by Nevada’s voters in the November 2016 election. The
statutory amendments required by the ballot initiative were deemed unenforceable
by the Attorney General. Through this case, the Appellants sought a writ of
mandamus to require the State of Nevada to enforce the ballot initiative’s
provisions.
After the November 2018 election, there are new constitutional officers in
the Office of the Governor and the Office of the Attorney General. While their
successors have not fully had an opportunity to consider all of the issues and their
own positions, settlement discussions have occurred among the parties and the
parties believe that further such discussions could be fruitful.
Additionally, it is anticipated that there will be legislative action taken in the
current Nevada legislative session that could significantly impact the issues raised
in this matter. As a result, the parties believe that an extension of the briefing
schedule will allow for an assessment of the impact, if any, of any such legislative
action could have on the issues raised by the appeal, and, thus, allow the parties to
further their settlement discussions.
In the absence of an extension or a stay, the parties will be required to
proceed as though the changed circumstances do not exist, which could result in
unnecessary briefing of issues that could otherwise be eliminated or resolved by
agreement. Accordingly, the conservation of judicial and public resources would be
served by the requested relief. Additionally, because of the parties’ stipulation,
Appellants had not anticipated being required to complete the Opening Brief on
such short notice. Given the press of many other concurrent and adjacent deadlines
for local counsel and appellate counsel, it would be exceedingly difficult for
Appellants to file a brief that thoroughly and adequately addresses the issues in this
appeal by the current February 19 deadline. For this reason, an extension is
warranted even setting aside the unusual circumstances set forth above. Taken
together, these circumstances indicate that the parties would be irreparably harmed
in the absence of the requested relief. See NRAP 27(e).
This Court has the authority to grant extensions of time pursuant to NRAP
26 and 31(b), upon good cause shown. Additionally, this Court has the authority to
grant a stay of the proceedings in this Court. See, e.g., NRAP 2. Accordingly, the
parties respectfully request the Court grant an extension of the time to file the
Opening Brief to April 1, 2019 or, in the alternative, stay this matter until the earlier
of the end of the current legislative session or the filing by the parties of a joint
request to lift the stay.
Dated this 12th day of February, 2019. Dated this 12th day of February, 2019.
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP GENERAL
/s/ Tami D. Cowden____________ /s/ Steve Shevorski

Mark E. Ferrario, Esq. Steve Shevorski, Esq.
Nevada Bar No. 1625 Nevada Bar No. 8256
Tami D. Cowden, Esq. 100 N. Carson Street
Nevada Bar No. 8994 Carson City, Nevada 89701
10845 Griffith Peak Dr., Ste. 600 Telephone: (775) 684-1208
Las Vegas, NV 89135 Facsimile: (775) 684-1108
Telephone: (702) 792-3773 Shevorski@ag.nv.gov
Facsimile: (702) 792-9002
Ferrariom@gtlaw.com Counsel for Respondents
Cowdent@gtlaw.com
NRAP 27(E) CERTIFICATE
For the reasons stated in the Stipulated Motion above, the Parties certify that
emergency relief is necessary to avoid irreparable harm, as specified in the
foregoing motion.
The Parties provide the following information required by NRAP 27((e)(3)
(A) The telephone numbers and office addresses of counsel are as follows:
Mark E. Ferrario, Esq.

Tami D. Cowden, Esq.
10845 Griffith Peak Dr., Ste. 600
Las Vegas, NV 89135
Telephone: (702) 792-3773
Facsimile: (702) 792-9002
Ferrariom@gtlaw.com
Cowdent@gtlaw.com
Steve Shevorski, Esq.
Office of the Attorney General
]100 N. Carson Street
Carson City, Nevada 89701
Telephone: (775) 684-1208
Facsimile: (775) 684-1108
Shevorski@ag.nv.gov
(B) Facts Showing the Nature of the Emergency
The request for emergency relief is justified by the imminent deadline
resulting from this Court’s order dated February 11, 2019. If the Opening Brief is
submitted by that date, there will not have been the opportunity for the parties to
assess the impact, if any on anticipated legislative action during the current
legislative session, or to otherwise completed settlement discussions that had
commenced. Moreover, as explained in the motion, in light of Appellants’ reliance
on the parties’ stipulation and the press of other business for Appellant’s trial and
appellate counsel, it would be exceedingly difficult to prepare a brief that
adequately and thoroughly addresses the issues under the existing schedule.
(C) Notification of Counsel
Because the request herein is made jointly, notice and service on the
respective parties is not required.
Dated this 12th day of February, 2019. Dated this 12th day of February, 2019.
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP GENERAL
/s/ Tami D. Cowden____________ /s/ Steve Shevorski

Mark E. Ferrario, Esq. Steve Shevorski, Esq.
Nevada Bar No. 1625 Nevada Bar No. 8256
Tami D. Cowden, Esq. 100 N. Carson Street
Nevada Bar No. 8994 Carson City, Nevada 89701
10845 Griffith Peak Dr., Ste. 600 Telephone: (775) 684-1208
Las Vegas, NV 89135 Facsimile: (775) 684-1108
Telephone: (702) 792-3773 Shevorski@ag.nv.gov
Facsimile: (702) 792-9002
Ferrariom@gtlaw.com Counsel for Respondents
Cowdent@gtlaw.com

Emergency Motion

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Emergency Motion

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Emergency Motion

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Mark E. Ferrario, Esq.

Nevada Bar No. 1625

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

DALE ZUSI; VICKI DELATORRE, and Case No. 77035

Appellants, STIPULATED EMERGENCY

EMERGENCY MOTION UNDER NRAP 27(E)

Docket 77035 Document 2019-06479

The parties acknowledge that their previous stipulation for an extension of

extension is necessary,” as required by NRAP 31(b). See Order Denying Motion

become more apparent since the parties’ stipulation was filed.

In short, an extension or stay is warranted by the unusual circumstances

surrounding this appeal—which concerns the potential severance of language from

statutory amendments required by the ballot initiative were deemed unenforceable

mandamus to require the State of Nevada to enforce the ballot initiative’s

parties believe that further such discussions could be fruitful.

Additionally, it is anticipated that there will be legislative action taken in the

further their settlement discussions.

In the absence of an extension or a stay, the parties will be required to

unnecessary briefing of issues that could otherwise be eliminated or resolved by

agreement. Accordingly, the conservation of judicial and public resources would be

served by the requested relief. Additionally, because of the parties’ stipulation,

appeal by the current February 19 deadline. For this reason, an extension is

in the absence of the requested relief. See NRAP 27(e).

request to lift the stay.

/s/ Tami D. Cowden____________ /s/ Steve Shevorski

emergency relief is necessary to avoid irreparable harm, as specified in the

The Parties provide the following information required by NRAP 27((e)(3)

Mark E. Ferrario, Esq.

(B) Facts Showing the Nature of the Emergency

The request for emergency relief is justified by the imminent deadline

legislative session, or to otherwise completed settlement discussions that had

commenced. Moreover, as explained in the motion, in light of Appellants’ reliance

(C) Notification of Counsel

respective parties is not required.

/s/ Tami D. Cowden____________ /s/ Steve Shevorski

You might also like