Buhecker et al v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.

Filing 59

ORDER Granting Defendant's 58 Motion to Extend Time re Dispositive Motion Deadline (First Request). Deadline extended 30 days after the Court has ruled on 57 Motion to Enforce Settlement and/or 40 Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Lloyd D. George on 9/23/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

Case 2:15-cv-00769-LDG-VCF Document 58 Filed 09/21/16 Page 1 of 3

1
2
3
4

5
6
7

FISHER &PHILLIPS LLF
SCOTT M. MAHONEY,ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 1099
300 South Fourth Street
Suite 300
~' Las Vegas, NV 89101
Telephone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendant,
Delta Air Lines,.Inc.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

9
10
11
r.a o
~ o
~ .-~ o

BRENDA PALM~R; JOHN PALMER
MARVIN POPE; BRYAN WISNER;
JAMES C. MALCOLM;and DANIEL
WATANABE;individuals,

12

Plaintiffs,
13

a~~
x ~~

15

vs.

14

p,, v, z
~ ~ ro

~n
aw >
r

16

+ ~,
~ o '~

)
)Case No. 2:15-cv-00769-LDG-VCF
)
)MOTION TO EXTEND
i DISPOSITIVE MOTION
i DEADLINE
i
(First Request)

DELTA AIRLINES,INC. a domestic
corporation; DOES I through X,
inclusive; ROE CORPORATIONS I
through X,inclusive;

17

w
Defendants

is
19
20

Defendant, Delta Air Lines, Inc.("Delta"), hereby moves this Court for an order

21

extending the dispositive motion deadline until 30 days after both of the following

22

events have occurred:(1) the Court has ruled on Delta's Motion to Enforce Settlement

23

Agreement (ECF No. 57) (the "Motion to Enforce") and (2) if the Court denies the

24

Motion to Enforce, a ruling has been made on Delta's Motion to Dismiss Second

25

Amended Complaint (ECF No. 40) (the "Motion to Dismiss"). This is the first

26

requested extension of this deadline.

27

This Motion is made and based on the pleadings and papers on file herein,

2s together with the following Memorandum of Points and Authorities.
32227077

Case 2:15-cv-00769-LDG-VCF Document 58 Filed 09/21/16 Page 2 of 3

1

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

2

The present diapositive motion deadline in this case is October 5, 2016. On May

3

25, 2016, Delta filed its Motion to Dismiss, which if granted, would dispose of most,

4

but not all, of the Plaintiffs' claims.

5

Delta contends that it reached a settlement of this case on September 1, but last

6

week, learned that one or more of the Plaintiffs have reneged on the agreement to settle.

7

Consequently, Delta filed the Motion to Enforce on September 21.

s
9

~,

settlement agreement, making the motions moot. Even if the Court were to ultimately

11
F-.1 0

Plaintiffs, only to have the Court eventually find that the parties have an enforceable

10

a~
~o
~ ~~
a~~

Delta should not have to bear the cost of preparing dispositive motions as to five

deny the Motion to Enforce, it would be more efficient to delay the filing of dispositive

12

motions until after the Court has ruled on the Motion to Dismiss.

i3

For example, Delta has moved to dismiss the ADA claims of Plaintiff, James

i4

Malcolm, based on his failure to state plausible claims for relief under the standards set

~ ~z
~~

is forth in Ashcroft v. Igbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), and Bell Atlantic CoNporation v.

~ w>
°

16

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007). Even if the Court were to find that these claims are not

o ,~
~ ~

17

subject to dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), Delta believes there are undisputed

18

facts which would entitle Delta to summary judgment on these claims as a matter of

19

law. However, Delta should not be required to undertake the expense of moving for

20

summary judgment on claims which may end up being dismissed by the Court pursuant

21

to the Motion to Dismiss. Delta believes it would be more economical for all concerned

22

if, to the extent necessary, summary judgment motions are filed only with respect to

23

claims which are still pending after the Motion to Dismiss has been decided.

on

w

24

The foregoing constitutes good cause pursuant to LR IA 6-1(a) to extend the

25

diapositive motion deadline. There is also excusable neglect under the foregoing rule

26

for Delta's failure to bring this Motion within 21 days of the current diapositive motion

27

deadline per LR 26-4, as Delta did not realize until last week that at least one of the

28

32227077

-2-

Case 2:15-cv-00769-LDG-VCF Document 58 Filed 09/21/16 Page 3 of 3

t

Plaintiffs was contesting the existence of a settlement agreement and that there is a

2

possibility of the case continuing into the dispositive motion phase.

3

Respectfully submitted,

4

FISHER &PHILLIPS LLP

5
c'/s~M~cott IVI. Mahoney, Esq.
SCOTT M. MAHONEY,ESQ.
300 South Fourth Street
Suite 1500
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
Attorneys for Defendant.
Delta Air Lines, Inc.

6
7

s
9

to
CERTIFICATE OF ELECTRONIC SERVICE
I1

This is to certify that on the 21st day of September 2016, the undersigned, an

r-~ o

12

~•

Y

13

employee of Fisher &Phillips LLP, electronically filed the foregoing Motion to Extend

~+ ~;
a~ ~,

14

Dispositive Motion Deadline with the U.S. District Court, and a copy was electronically

is

transmitted from the court to the e-mail address on file for:

a~
~o

~, ~ z
~ ~ ~n
w >
°

16

oa

17

~ M

Trevor J. Hatfield, Esq.
Hatfield &Associates, Ltd.
703 South Eighth Street
Las Vegas, NV 89101

w
i8
19

By: /s/ Lorraine James-Newman
An employee of Fisher &Phillips LLP

20
21

ORDER

22
23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this _____ day of September, 2016.

25

___________________________
Lloyd D. George
Sr. U.S. District Judge

26
27
28

32227077

-3-