Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Kalling v. Cannery Casino Resorts, LLC

United States District Court, D. Nevada

May 30, 2002

MARK KALLING, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v.
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

          ROBERT 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

          HON. JAMES C. MAHAN United States Judge

         IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the undersigned attorneys for the parties as follows:

         1. The 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.

         2. Pursuant to the parties' agreed upon briefing schedule, Defendant filed its motion to dismiss on May 17, 2018. Dkt. No. 17.

         3. The 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.

         4. In 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.

         5. IT 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 its reply.

         6. IT 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.

         IT IS SO ORDERED.

         DECLARATION OF CHANT YEDALIAN

         I, 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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.