United States District Court, D. Nevada
MARK KALLING, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
CANNERY CASINO RESORTS, LLC. d/b/a Cannery Casino Hoteld/b/a Cannery Casino & Hotel; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants.
KENNETH M. ROBERTS, ESQ. DEMPSEY, ROBERTS & SMITH,
LTD.d.com Local Counsel And CHANT YEDALIAN, ESQ. CHANT &
COMPANY Attorneys for Plaintiff
MCCOY KAEMPFER CROWELL Attorneys for Defendant
JOINT STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER ON BRIEFING
SCHEDULE AND PAGE LIMITS REGARDING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO
DISMISS; SUPPORTING DECLARATION OF CHANT YEDALIAN
JAMES C. MAHAN United States Judge
HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the undersigned
attorneys for the parties as follows:
parties had previously agreed on a briefing schedule whereby
Defendant would have until May 17, 2018 to file its motion to
dismiss, Plaintiff would have until June 18, 2018 to file its
opposition, and Defendant would have until July 2, 2018 to
file its reply. The Court was previously notified of this
agreement concerning a briefing schedule as part of a joint
status report filed by the parties. Dkt. No. 15, at ¶ 3.
This briefing schedule was not intended for the purpose of
any delay but was based on the respective availability,
schedule and work demands of counsel for the parties.
Pursuant to the parties' agreed upon briefing schedule,
Defendant filed its motion to dismiss on May 17, 2018. Dkt.
parties respectfully seek an order adopting the remaining
balance of the agreed upon briefing schedule, such that
Plaintiff will have until June 18, 2018 to file its
opposition to the motion to dismiss, and Defendant will have
until July 2, 2018 to file its reply.
addition, Plaintiff respectfully requests an order allowing
him an additional 10 pages for his opposition.
Defendant's motion to dismiss raises three different
purported grounds for dismissal (1) Article III standing, (2)
the claim that there is no FACTA violation, and (3) the claim
that if there is a violation, the violation was not willful.
Yedalian Decl. at ¶ 1. Based upon Plaintiffs
counsel's experience briefing like matters, Plaintiffs
counsel believes Plaintiff will need the excess pages to
adequately respond to each of the three different grounds
raised by Defendant's motion to dismiss. Ibid.
Had only one of these grounds been raised (instead of three),
Plaintiff would have had 24 pages to respond to one ground.
Ibid. Here, although three different grounds are
raised, Plaintiff is not seeking to increase the
page limit threefold but is instead only seeking an
additional 10 pages (34 pages in total) to address all three
different grounds raised by Defendant's motion.
Ibid. Defendant does not have any objection to
Plaintiffs request. Ibid. Likewise, Plaintiff does
not oppose Defendant having an additional 5 pages for its
reply, which Defendant deems sufficient. Ibid.
IS THEREFORE STIPULATED AND AGREED that Plaintiff will have
until June 18, 2018 to file its opposition to the motion to
dismiss, and Defendant will have until July 2, 2018 to file
IS THEREFORE FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the page
limitation for Plaintiffs opposition to the motion to dismiss
will be enlarged from 24 to 34 pages, and Defendant's
page limitation for its reply will be enlarged from 12 pages
to 17 pages.
IS SO ORDERED.
OF CHANT YEDALIAN
Chant Yedalian, declare as follows:
I am an
attorney at law licensed to practice before all of the courts
of the State of California and have been admitted Pro Hac
Vice to practice before this Court in this case. I am
one of the attorneys for the named Plaintiff Mark Kalling. As
such, I have personal knowledge of, or am informed and
believe, the following facts ...