Waiting until a little under five minutes left in the deadline to file the opening brief in an appeal of Jose “Chille” DeCastro’s February loss to the Las Vegas Metro Police Department, attorney Michael Mee filed for another extension despite the court ruling that the previous extension was the final extension in the case.
Mee claimed special circumstances in his request for the third extension, stating:
Counsel is a solo practitioner in Las Vegas, Nevada, supported by two part time staff, a legal assistant and a paralegal. In approximately June 2026, the HVAC system at counsel’s leased commercial office in downtown Las Vegas began to fail intermittently, and in July 2026 it was entirely non-functional. Temperatures inside the office exceeded 90 degrees and at times reached 100 degrees. Counsel could not properly require his staff to work in those conditions, and from late June through September 2026 he was without both of them.
The disruption affected counsel’s entire caseload, not only this matter. Counsel was unable to meet with clients at his office, lost access to the administrative and office equipment provided with the lease, and was required to spend substantial time securing new office space, all without support staff. The building operator repeatedly extended its timelines for restoring the system. Counsel ultimately relocated his practice in mid-September 2026 to a permanent new location at 1100 S. 10th Street, Las Vegas, Nevada. That relocation is complete, and the cause of the delay has ended.
These are not the ordinary demands of a busy practice. They are extreme and extraordinary circumstances which neither counsel nor, certainly, Appellant could have foreseen or prevented. Appellant had no part in them and should not suffer prejudice as a result.
No prejudice will result to Appellees. The requested extension causes Appellees no loss of evidence, no change in position, and no expense. The interests of justice and equity also favor the extension. Rule 26(b) permits the Court to extend time for good cause. Denying the extension would leave Appellant to proceed on a brief counsel could not properly complete, and Appellant would bear the consequences of events entirely outside his control. Given the absence of any prejudice to Appellees, the equities favor allowing Appellant a fair opportunity to have this appeal decided on its merits.
The original lawsuit stemmed from DeCastro’s 2023 arrest in Las Vegas where he was convicted of obstructing a police officer and interfering with a traffic stop. He was later acquitted of the charges.
DeCastro filed suit in federal court while awaiting trial, with the case dragging on until February of 2026. At trial, DeCastro’s defense was found to be lacking and DeCastro blamed the number of people either related to police officers or who worked with police officers that tainted the jury pool.
This was expected to be DeCastro’s argument for the appeal… except DeCastro has yet to file the opening brief, which was originally due on March 23, 2026.
The first delay came in March when both sides were ordered into mediation. That mediation lasted technically until both sides were released in May but really ended earlier due to DeCastro’s attempt to live stream the confidential mediation hearing.
After mediation failed, Mee was granted a motion to extend time in May for sixty days, giving the attorney until July 27, 2026, to file the brief. No reasoning was given for the extension.
In July, when DeCastro was undergoing a financial crisis and had yet to purchase transcripts of the trial which were required to move forward, another sixty-day extension was granted, this time setting a final deadline of September 28, 2026, to file the opening brief.
The court noted that it would be the final extension, noting:
Failure to file the opening brief by September 28, 2026 may result in dismissal of this case for failure to prosecute. See 9th Cir. R. 42-1.
According to Mee, he knew about his difficulty with the HVAC system in June and his problems extended until early September, when he moved to his new office location. No mention was made of the HVAC difficulties in his July Motion to extend and he inexplicably waited until moments before the reply brief was due to file his latest extension.
The pair are also challenging the awarding of attorney’s fees and court costs to the LVMPD defendants in the original case, but that can’t be resolved until after the appeal is heard.
Mee’s apparent difficulty managing DeCastro’s multiple cases came up in a recent filing in another case involving the LVMPD. In another federal lawsuit involving the same original circumstances, DeCastro recently used Mee as an excuse for missing key deadlines to serve the two Judges involved in DeCastro’s conviction and acquittal.
After DeCastro apparently missed deadlines to serve the judges, after over nine months of extensions, the case was dismissed… until DeCastro reappeared, days after the final deadline to respond to the dismissal, stating that he had hired Mee to handle the lawsuit, turned all service over to Mee, and then Mee hadn’t filed an appearance or had done any work on the case.
Mee is also representing DeCastro in a criminal case from a July 3, 2026, arrest in Las Vegas.
Despite the court stating that the previous extension would be the last extension for the appeal, it is likely that the court will grant Mee’s request, pushing the filing date to November 27, 2026.
This is a breaking news story.
