United States District Court, D. Nevada
P. KEMP, ESQ. VICTORIA L. NEAL, ESQ. KEMP & KEMP
Attorneys for Plaintiff Hector Torres
DEVERIE J. CHRISTENSEN, ESQ. JOSHUA A. SLIKER, ESQ. JACKSON
LEWIS, P.C. Attorneys for Defendant Bellagio, LLC
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND RESPONSE
AND REPLY DISPOSITIVE MOTION DEADLINES ECF NO. 47
Jennifer A. Dorsey U.S. District Judge.
to Local Rules IA 6-1 and 26-4, Plaintiff HECTOR TORRES
(“Plaintiff”) by and through his counsel, Kemp
& Kemp, and Defendant BELLAGIO, LLC
(“Defendant”), by and through its counsel,
Jackson Lewis P.C., hereby stipulate to amend the Discovery
Plan and Scheduling Order (ECF No. 35) and Order Granting
Stipulation to Extend Discovery Deadlines (Fourth Request)
(ECF No. 45) by extending the deadline to file both the
response and rely to dispositive motions as set forth below.
the fifth request for an extension to the discovery plan and
scheduling order in this matter. The parties' prior
requests have sought additional time to conduct discovery
which in turn affected the deadline to file dispositive
motions under FRCP 56. Thereafter, the parties stipulated to
an extension of time for Defendant's to file its Motion
for Summary Judgment. ECF No. 45. This extension does not
seek additional time to conduct discovery, and is sought in
good faith and not for purposes of delay. The request to
extend the deadlines is subject to the good standard as the
request is made less 21 days prior to its expiration. LR
26-4. Good cause exist to extend the deadline as several
unanticipated interceding events have occurred which
necessitates the parties' request.
OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
Rule 6(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the
Court may, for good cause, extend a deadline if the request
is made before the deadline expires. Similarly, under Rule
16(b)(4), a deadline set forth in a scheduling order may be
modified for good cause. The good cause inquiry focuses on
the moving party's diligence. Johnson v. Mammoth
Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 608-09 (9th Cir. 1992).
Although Local Rule 26-4 requires all motions to extend a
deadline set forth in a scheduling order to be filed no later
than 21 days before the expiration of the subject deadline,
the underlying rationale of the Local Rule is not implicated
here because the parties have entered into the instant
stipulation. See Woods v. Quintana, No.
2:13-cv-01314-APG-CWH, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50889, at *6 (D.
Nev. Apr. 15, 2016) (“Part of the underlying rationale
for Local Rule 26-4 is to avoid the situation in which the
Court” has to “attempt to decide a motion to
extend a deadline before there has been time for the opposing
party to respond to the motion.”).
good cause exists to extend both the response and reply
deadlines relating to the filing of Defendant's Motion
for Summary judgment on May 4, 2018. ECF No. 46. The
undersigned Counsel for Plaintiff is currently engaged in
preparations for arbitration in another case to take place
the week of May 21, 2018, in Los Angeles, CA. That case has
been extremely contentious and the past several weeks have
seen unexpected depositions ordered and taken and unexpected
discovery motion practice. The parties are now engaged in
pre-trial motion practice, as well as preparing for the
arbitration hearing itself. Since May 4, 2018, through May
25, 2018, Plaintiff's counsel has had to, or going
forward will have to, prepare a reply brief for the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals, prepare for and attend four (4)
Early Neutral Evaluations/Settlement Conferences, and two out
of state depositions. After the arbitration hearing and
travel back to Las Vegas on May 25, 2018, Counsel has a
preplanned vacation scheduled. Accordingly, the parties
respectfully request that Plaintiff's deadline to respond
to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment be extended
from its current deadline of May 25, 2018, to June 22, 2018.
the deadline for Plaintiff to file his response necessarily
requires Defendant's reply date be extended.
Defendant's counsel will be traveling for a few weeks
during what would be the usual reply time. Accordingly, the
parties respectfully request that Defendant's deadline to
reply be extended from what the deadline would be (calculated
from the above date requested for Plaintiff's extension)
of July 6, 2018, to July 23, 2018.
on the parties' stipulation [ECF No. 47] and good cause
appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the deadline to file the
response to the motion for summary judgment [ECF No. 46] is
extended to 6/22/18, and the deadline for reply is extended
to 7/23/18. The parties are cautioned, however, that
counsel's workload and professional ...