Kennedy et al v. R.M.L.V., LLC

Filing 23

ORDER Granting 22 Unopposed Motion to Extend the Response date to 21 MOTION to Certify Class. Responses due by 12/13/2012. Signed by Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 11/29/2012. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLR)

1
2
3
4
5
6

FENNEMORE CRAIG, P.C.
Janice Procter-Murphy (NV Bar No. 10960)
Kevin M. Green (NV Bar No. 12384)
3003 North Central Avenue, Suite 2600
Phoenix, AZ 85012-2913
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendant
R.M.L.V., LLC

7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

10
11
12
13
14
15
16

JENNIFER KENNEDY, an individual,
CHRIS GORDON, an individual, LUIS
PONCE, an individual, JESSICA
STICKEN, an individual, RAY GROH, an
individual, RICARDO PARSONS, an
individual, ED POLLICK, an individual,
HEATHER SCHNEIBERG, an individual,
JON STARK, an individual, ROBERT
THOMAS, an individual, VAIVA
YOUNG, an individual, STEVEN JULIUS
MILLER, an individual, and on BEHALF
OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,

17
18
19
20

No. 2:12-CV-1134-GMN
RMLV, LLC’S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO
EXTEND THE DEADLINE FOR RMLV,
LLC TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION FOR NOTICE OF THE
PENDENCY OF THIS ACTION,
CONDITIONAL CERTIFICATION AND
FOR OTHER RELIEF (DOC. 21)
(First Request)

Plaintiffs,
v.
R.M.L.V., LLC, a domestic limitedliability company; Individually; DOES I
through X, inclusive; and ROE
CORPORATIONS I through X, inclusive,

21
Defendants.

22
23

Pursuant to LR 6-1 and LR 6-2 of the Local Rules of Civil Practice of the United States

24

District Court for the District of Nevada, defendant RMLV, LLC (“RMLV”) requests that the

25

Court grant a one-week extension for RMLV to respond to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Notice of the

26

Pendency of this Action, Conditional Certification, and for Other Relief (the “Motion” (Doc. 21)).

FENNEMORE CRAIG, P.C.
PHOE NI X

1

RMLV’s opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion currently is due on December 6, 2012. Based on the

2

extraordinary circumstances set forth below, RMLV respectfully requests that the Court enter an

3

order extending RMLV’s deadline to respond to Plaintiffs’ Motion until December 13, 2012.

4

On the morning of November 28, 2012, counsel for RMLV contacted Plaintiffs’ counsel

5

concerning RMLV’s request for a one-week extension. See Declaration of Kevin M. Green,

6

attached as Exhibit 1, ¶ 3. Plaintiffs’ counsel does not oppose the requested extension. Id.

7

Extraordinary circumstances warrant this one-week extension. Plaintiffs’ Motion raises

8

important issues that concern the scope of this litigation, including whether this matter should

9

proceed as a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and what particular groups

10

employees should receive notice of the opt-in action.

11

Plaintiffs’ Motion was filed the holiday week of Thanksgiving. The offices of RMLV’s

12

counsel were closed beginning mid-afternoon of Wednesday, November 21 through the following

13

Monday morning. RMLV’s undersigned counsel also have substantial prior work commitments

14

this week and continuing through the first week of December including, among other things, a

15

two-day deposition of a plaintiff, out of state, in another matter which cannot be rescheduled.

16

Due to their prior work commitments, the Thanksgiving holiday, and the fact that preparation of

17

RMLV’s opposition to the Motion will require a substantial amount of time, RMLV’s counsel

18

request a brief extension of one additional week to prepare RMLV’s opposition.

19

Finally, RMLV’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 8) is currently awaiting a ruling from the

20

Court. Magistrate Judge Foley has partially stayed discovery in this case pending resolution of

21

RMLV’s Motion to Dismiss and has not entered any discovery, dispositive motion, or other

22

deadlines pending resolution of that motion. See Order (Doc. 18). Instead, Magistrate Judge

23

Foley has ordered the parties to file an amended discovery plan within 10 days after a decision on

24

RMLV’s Motion to Dismiss is rendered. See id. Under these unique circumstances, granting

25

RMLV’s requested extension will not alter any other deadlines in this case.

26

For the foregoing reasons, RMLV respectfully requests that the Court grant a one-week

FENNEMORE CRAIG, P.C.
PHOE NI X

-2-

1

extension for RMLV to respond to Plaintiffs’ Motion, extending the deadline from December 6,

2

2012 to December 13, 2012.

3
4

DATED: November 28, 2012.
FENNEMORE CRAIG, P.C.

5
6
7
8

By /s/ Kevin M. Green
Janice Procter-Murphy
Kevin M. Green
Attorneys for Defendant
R.M.L.V., LLC

9
10
IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
12
13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14

November 29, 2012

15

DATED: ____________________________

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
FENNEMORE CRAIG, P.C.
PHOE NI X

-3-

1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2

I hereby certify that on November 28, 2011, I electronically transmitted the attached

3

document to the Clerk’s Office using the CM/ECF system for filing and transmittal of a Notice of

4

Electronic Filing to the following CM/ECF registrants:

5

PARKER | SCHEER LAGOMARSINO
ANDRE M. LAGOMARSINO, ESQ.
JACOB G. LEAVITT, ESQ.
9555 South Eastern Avenue, Suite 210
Las Vegas, Nevada 89123
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

6
7
8
9
10
11

By /s/ Colleen A. Loos
An Employee of Fennemore Craig, P.C.

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
FENNEMORE CRAIG, P.C.
PHOE NI X

-4-