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.

Berry v. Desert Palace, Inc.

United States District Court, D. Nevada

October 31, 2017

WILLIAM J. BERRY, JR.; CYNTHIA FALLS; and SHANE KAUFMAN, Plaintiffs,
v.
DESERT PALACE, INC., d/b/a CAESARS PALACE; DOES I through X, and ROE BUSINESS ENTITIES I through X, inclusive, Defendants.

          SCOTT M. MAHONEY Fisher & Phillips LLP DONALD R. LIVINGSTON ESTHER G. LANDER Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP Attorneys for Defendant, Desert Palace, Inc., d/b/a Caesars Palace

          KATHLEEN J. ENGLAND Gilbert & England Law Firm JASON R. MAIER DANIELLE J. BARRAZA Maier Gutierrez & Associates Attorneys for Plaintiffs, William J. Berry, Jr., Cynthia Falls, and Shane Kaufmann

          STIPULATION AND ORDER TO STAY LITIGATION PENDING OUTCOME OF MEDIATION

         IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between Plaintiffs WILLIAM J. BERRY, JR., CYNTHIA FALLS, and SHANE KAUFMANN and Defendant DESERT PALACE, INC., d/b/a CAESARS PALACE, by and through their respective counsel of record, that the current proceedings be stayed pending the outcome of a mediation between the parties, which will be set in early December 2017. The parties state as follows:

         1. This matter was commenced on January 3, 2017 [ECF No. 1].

         2. On June 2, 2017, the Court granted the parties' proposed discovery plan/scheduling order [ECF No. 25], which set December 29, 2017 as the discovery cut-off date in this matter.

         3. On June 26, 2017, the parties took part in an Early Neutral Evaluation Conference with Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr. [see ECF No. 27]. The case continued on the normal litigation track because no settlement was reached.

         4. The parties have thereafter engaged in extensive written discovery and document productions to each other.

         5. On September 15, 2017, defendant filed a motion to sever the claims of William J. Berry, Jr. [ECF No. 29]. Plaintiffs' response was initially due on September 29, 2017, but the parties agreed to extend time for plaintiffs to respond due to new associating counsel joining the matter on plaintiffs' behalf [see ECF No. 32].

         6. During this first extension of time, the lead counsel for the parties conferred on several occasions regarding the issues in the case and whether it would be wise to explore mediation. The parties therefore agreed to a second, and subsequently a third, extension of time for plaintiffs to respond to defendant's motion to sever to allow the parties to continue their discussions regarding setting up and scheduling a mediation session within the next two months [see ECF Nos. 35, 38].

         7. As the discussions have progressed, the parties have decided to move forward with mediation, have agreed to an outside mediator, and are in the process of finalizing terms and a mutually agreeable date for the mediation, which will be set on December 5th, 12th, 13th, or 14th of 2017.

         8. The parties have further agreed to file the instant Stipulation and Order seeking to stay all proceedings in this matter, including the adjournment of the following deadlines until after the mediation is concluded:

(i) Plaintiffs' deadline to respond to defendant's motion to sever the claims of William J. Berry, Jr. [ECF No. 29];
(ii) The discovery deadlines set forth in the discovery plan/scheduling order [ECF No. 25];
(iii) Defendant's deadline to respond to Plaintiffs' 5th Set of Requests to ...

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.