United States District Court, D. Nevada
KRYSTAL LOCKETT, et al., individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
PINNACLE ENTERTAINMENT, INC., et al., Defendants.
L. FOLEY, Ph.D., ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 9017, MARTA D.
KURSHUMOVA, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 14728, HKM EMPLOYMENT
ATTORNEYS LLP, STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP GEORGE A. HANSON,
ESQ, pro hac vice ALEXANDER T. RICKE, ESQ., pro hac vice
Counsel for Plaintiffs AND ADDITIONAL COUNSEL LISTED ON
McCLELLAND LAW FIRM, P.C.Ryan L. McClelland RYAN L.
MCCLELLAND, ESQ., pro hac vice
& SMAY LLP Matthew E. Osman MATTHEW E. OSMAN, ESQ,
KATHRYN S. RICKLEY, ESQ., pro hac vice Counsel for Plaintiffs
PLAINTIFFS' UNOPPOSED MOTION [AND PROPOSED ORDER]
FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO FOREIGN SUBSIDIARY
DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO RULE 12(b)(2)
(ECF No. 30), DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO TRANSFER (ECF No.
31), AND DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO RULE
12(b)(6) (ECF No. 32)
P. GORDON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b) and Local Rule IA
6-1, Plaintiffs move the Court for a seven day extension of
time - from the current deadline of April 17, 2019, until up
to and including April 24, 2019 - to respond to
Defendants' three pending motions: (1) the Foreign
Subsidiary Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule
12(b)(2) (ECF No. 30); (2) Defendants' Motion to Transfer
Case to the United States District Court for the Western
District of Missouri (ECF No. 31); and (3) Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) (ECF No. 32).
support of this unopposed Motion, Plaintiffs state as
Plaintiffs filed their Class and Collective Action Complaint
and Jury Demand on February 21, 2019. (ECF No. 1).
Court granted Defendants' unopposed request for an
extension of time (approximately 19 days) to respond to
Plaintiffs' Complaint. (ECF No. 27).
April 3, 2019, Defendants filed three motions: (1) the
Foreign Subsidiary Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Pursuant
to Rule 12(b)(2) (ECF No. 30); (2) Defendants' Motion to
Transfer Case to the United States District Court for the
Western District of Missouri (ECF No. 31); and (3)
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6)
(ECF No. 32).
current deadline for Plaintiffs to respond to Defendants'
three pending motions is April 17, 2019.
Plaintiffs are requesting a seven day extension of time, up
to and including April 24, 2019, to respond to
Defendants' three pending motions. This is
Plaintiffs' first request for an extension of time.
Despite the exercise of diligence, counsel for Plaintiffs
reasonably believe they will require an additional 7 days (to
April 24, 2019) to adequately prepare their responses to
Defendants' motions, which cite numerous cases and attach
a substantial volume of evidentiary materials. This extension
of time is sought for good cause and to ensure that
Plaintiffs can fully and fairly present their arguments. This
requested extension of time will not prejudice Defendants,
nor will it unduly delay the timely disposition of this
extension of time is also in the interest of justice because
it will allow the parties additional time to discuss a
written proposal made by Plaintiffs to Defendants on April 9,
2019, that may moot at least some of the issues raised in
Defendants' pending motions. Lead counsel for Defendants
indicated that she had limited availability to review and
discuss that proposal with her clients last week. Plaintiffs
are currently awaiting Defendants' response to
Plaintiffs' proposal. Lead counsel for Plaintiffs is
traveling this week and has limited availability due to an
initial case management conference and related meetings
occurring in Florida in connection with a new MDL matter.
Defendants' counsel has confirmed that Defendants do not