Olshansky v. Eldorado Resorts Corporation et al

Filing 69

ORDER Granting 67 Motion to Extend Time re 62 Motion for Summary Judgment. (Responses due by 5/26/2017.) Signed by Judge Richard F. Boulware, II on 5/24/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

8

Daniel R. Watkins
Nevada State Bar No. 11881
[e-mail]
Brian S. Letofsky
Nevada State Bar No. 11836
[e-mail]
Eran S. Forster
Nevada State Bar No. 11124
[e-mail]
WATKINS & LETOFSKY, LLP
8215 S. Eastern Avenue, Suite 265
Las Vegas, NV 89123
Office: [phone]; Fax: [phone]

9

Attorneys for Plaintiff, Steven Olshansky

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

12
13

STEVEN OLSHANSKY,

14
15
16
17
18
19

Case No.: 2:15-cv-01017-RFB-PAL

Plaintiff;
vs.
ELDORADO RESORTS CORPORATION, a
Florida corporation; MICHAEL MARRS;
KRISTEN BECK; DOMINIC TALEGHANI;
AND DOES 1-50, inclusive;
Defendants.

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR AN
EXTENTION TO FILE AN OPPOSITION
TO THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGEMENT.
[Plaintiff’s Second Request for an Extension
to Respond to Dispositive Motions]

20
21
22

COMES NOW, Plaintiff, STEVEN OLSHANSKY, by and through their attorney of

23

record, hereby submits Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Dispositive

24

Motions. This motion is made under the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (hereinafter “FRCP”)

25

rule 6(b)(1)(A) and Nevada District Court Local Rules (hereinafter “LR”) 6-2 and 26-4.

26

Defendant filed their Motion for Summary Judgment on March 23, 2017. The current deadline

27

for Plaintiff’s response is April 24, 2017.

28
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANTS’
DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS (Second Request)
-1-

1

This motion is based on this Motion, the Memorandum of Points and Authorities filed

2

herewith, the pleadings and papers filed herein and upon such other matters as may be presented

3

to the Court at the time of the hearing.

4
5
6

DATED: April 24, 2017

WATKINS & LETOFSKY, LLP

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

By:

/s/ Daniel R. Watkins
___________________________
DANIEL R. WATKINS
BRIAN S. LETOFSKY
ERAN S. FORSTER
WATKINS & LETOFSKY, LLP
8215 S. Eastern Avenue, Suite 265
Las Vegas, NV 89123
Office: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
STEVEN OLSHANSKY

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANTS’
DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS (Second Request)
-2-

1

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

2
3

I.

4

FACTS

5

As the Court is aware, this case is one of thirty-three related lawsuits (“Related Cases”)

6

sitting before this Court. Recognizing the complexity of litigating these lawsuits simultaneously,

7

the parties agreed to divide the cases into five groups and stagger deadlines in order to streamline

8

the litigation process and avoid overlapping dispositive motion deadlines. (See ECF No. 61, 2:4-

9

1).

10
11

On March 23, 2017, Defendant filed their Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 68).
Defendant also filed three other Motions for Summary Judgment in the related cases.1

12

In Bouch v. Eldorado Resorts Corporation, et al., the motion consisted of thirty-one

13

pages and thirty-nine exhibits (ECF No. 68), a Notice of Filing (ECF No. 70) and Index of

14

Exhibits (ECF No. 69), totaling approximately 402 (four-hundred and two) pages. In Olshansky

15

v. Eldorado Resorts Corporation, et al., the motion consisted of eighteen pages and twenty

16

exhibits (ECF No. 62), a Notice of Filing (ECF No. 64) and Index of Exhibits (ECF No. 63),

17

totaling approximately 271 (two-hundred and seventy-one) pages. In Parr v. Eldorado Resorts

18

Corporation, et al., the motion consisted of thirty-one pages and twenty-three exhibits (ECF No.

19

53), a Notice of Filing (ECF No. 55) and Index of Exhibits (ECF No. 54), totaling approximately

20

261 (two-hundred and sixty one) pages. In Sekkatv. Eldorado Resorts Corporation, et al., the

21

motion consisted of twenty-five and twelve exhibits (ECF No. 64), a Notice of Filing (ECF No.

22

66) and Index of Exhibits (ECF No. 65), totaling approximately 261 (two-hundred and sixty one)

23

pages.

24
25
1

26
27

The Motions for Summary Judgment filed on March 23, 2017 are: Sekkat v. Eldorado Resorts Corporation, et al.,
2:15-cv-01029-RFB-PAL (ECF No. 64); Parr v. Eldorado Resorts Corporation, et al., 2:15-cv-01030-RFB-PAL
(ECF No. 53); Olshansky v. Eldorado Resorts Corporation, et al., 2:15-cv-01017-RFB-PAL (ECF No. 62); and
Bouch v. Eldorado Resorts Corporation, et al., 2:15-cv-01023-RFB-PAL (ECF No. 68).

28
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANTS’
DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS (Second Request)
-3-

1

Since March 23, 2017, there’s been almost daily depositions or cancelled depositions that

2

took place. Furthermore, Plaintiffs’ law firm, Watkins & Letofsky, brought back an associate

3

from Medical Leave to help with the instant case and Related Cases. Defense Counsel felt there

4

might be a conflict of interest with the specific associate and she was taken off the case as a

5

courtesy to Defendants. However, a new associate has not yet been hired to replace her tasks on

6

the Related Cases.

7

The current deadline for Plaintiff to respond to Defendants’ dispositive motions is April

8

24, 2017. Plaintiff files this current motion seeking an extension until May 15, 2017 to provide a

9

meaningful response to Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment.

10

II.

11

ARGUMENT

12
13
14
15
16
17

A. LEGAL STANDARD FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, Rule 6 (b) EXTENDING TIME.
(1) In General. When an act may or must be done within a specified time,
the court may, for good cause, extend the time:
(A) with or without motion or notice if the court acts, or if a request
is made, before the original time or its extension expires; or
(B) on motion made after the time has expired if the party failed to
act because of excusable neglect.

18
19

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(A) permits a party to extend a deadline prior to

20

its expiration upon a showing of "good cause." The standard to be applied by a court under

21

FRCP 6(b)(1) is a liberal one in order to "effectuate the general purpose of seeing that cases are

22

tried on the merits." Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1258-59 (9 Cir. 2010).

23

"Good cause is a non-rigorous standard that has been construed broadly across procedural and

24

statutory contexts." Id at 1259.

25

“Consequently, requests for extensions of time made before the applicable deadline has

26

passed should ‘normally ... be granted in the absence of bad faith on the part of the party seeking

27

relief or prejudice to the adverse party.’” Id. (Internal citation omitted).

28
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANTS’
DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS (Second Request)
-4-

1

Here, Plaintiff’s counsel was served with the instant Motion for Summary Judgment on

2

March 23, 2017. Also on March 23, 2017, Plaintiff’s counsel was served with three other

3

motions for summary judgment in the Related Cases.2

4

Plaintiff has good cause to request this timely3 extension of the deadlines to respond to

5

Defendants’ four simultaneous filings of their Motions for Summary Judgment because of the

6

sheer volume and size of the motions in addition to the mass amount of evidence4 obtained in

7

discovery to refute the motions and the subtleties and nuances between the FMLA and ADA

8

causes of action in these specific cases.

9

For example, in Bouch v. Eldorado Resorts Corporation, et al., the motion consisted of

10

thirty-one pages and thirty-nine exhibits (ECF No. 68), a Notice of Filing (ECF No. 70) and

11

Index of Exhibits (ECF No. 69), totaling approximately 402 (four-hundred and two) pages. In

12

Olshansky v. Eldorado Resorts Corporation, et al., the motion consisted of eighteen pages and

13

twenty exhibits (ECF No. 62), a Notice of Filing (ECF No. 64) and Index of Exhibits (ECF No.

14

63), totaling approximately 271 (two-hundred and seventy-one) pages. In Parr v. Eldorado

15

Resorts Corporation, et al., the motion consisted of thirty-one pages and twenty-three exhibits

16

(ECF No. 53), a Notice of Filing (ECF No. 55) and Index of Exhibits (ECF No. 54), totaling

17

approximately 261 (two-hundred and sixty one) pages. In Sekkatv. Eldorado Resorts

18

Corporation, et al., the motion consisted of twenty-five and twelve exhibits (ECF No. 64), a

19

Notice of Filing (ECF No. 66) and Index of Exhibits (ECF No. 65), totaling approximately 261

20

(two-hundred and sixty one) pages.

21

It would be challenging to respond to a single Motion for Summary Judgment of this size

22

and magnitude within the time frame required. However, responding to all four is simply

23

impractical. The amount of depositions being conducted and the overlap of motions including

24
2

25
26
27
28

The Motions for Summary Judgment in the Related Cases, including the instant motion, are: Kaplan v. Eldorado
Resorts Corporation, et al., 2:15-cv-01015-RFB-PAL (ECF No. 57); Barnes v. Eldorado Resorts Corporation, et
al., 2:15-cv-01026-RFB-PAL (ECF No. 60); Parr v. Eldorado Resorts Corporation, et al. (ECF No. 50), 2:15-cv01028-RFB-PAL (ECF No. 60); and Scheinburg v. Eldorado Resorts Corporation, et al., 2:15-cv-01031-RFB-PAL
(ECF No. 63).
3
Plaintiff’s deadline to respond to dispositive motions is April 24, 2017.
4
Including but not limited to years of medical records, paystubs, chargeback records and time sheets.

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANTS’
DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS (Second Request)
-5-

1

the amount of exhibits and evidence in the instant case and Related Cases has put Plaintiff in a

2

position of needing until May 15, 2017, to respond to Defendants’ dispositive motions.

3
4

III.

5

CONCLUSION

6

For the above stated reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests an extension of time until

7

May 15, 2017, to allow Plaintiff to file their responses to Defendants’ Motion for Summary

8

Judgment.

9
10
11

DATED: April 24, 2017

WATKINS & LETOFSKY, LLP

12
By:

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

OLSHANSKY

/s/ Daniel R. Watkins
___________________________
DANIEL R. WATKINS
BRIAN S. LETOFSKY
WATKINS & LETOFSKY, LLP
8215 S. Eastern Avenue, Suite 265
Las Vegas, NV 89123
Office: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiff, STEVEN

IT IS SO ORDERED:

23

__________________________
___________________
RICHARD F BOULWAR II
CHARD F. BOULWARE,
United States District Judge

24

DATED this 24th day of May, 2017.

22

25
26
27
28
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANTS’
DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS (Second Request)
-6-

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

I hereby certify that I electronically transmitted the attached document to the Clerk’s Office
using CM/ECF System for filing and transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following CM
ECF registrants:
Anthony L. Martin
Jill Garcia
I am an employee with Watkins & Letofsky and am "readily familiar" with the firm's
practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. It is deposited with U.S. postal
service on the same day in the ordinary course of business, addressed to the following:
Anthony Martin, Esq.
Jill Garcia, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK,
& STEWART, P.C.
Wells Fargo Tower, Suite 1500
3800 Howard Hughes Parkway
Las Vegas, NV 89169

Attorney for Defendants,
ELDORADO RESORTS CORPORATION,
MICHAEL MARRS, BRUCE POLANSKY,
DOMINIC TALEGHANI, KRISTEN
BECK, and JAMES GRIMES

14
15
16

Executed on this 24th day of April, 2017 at Newport Beach, California.

17
18
19
20

/s/ Susan Watkins
Susan Watkins, an employee of
WATKINS & LETOFSKY, LLP

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANTS’
DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS (Second Request)
-7-