Barnes v. Eldorado Resorts Corporation et al

Filing 68

ORDER Granting 63 Motion to Extend Time to Respond re 60 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Richard F. Boulware, II on 4/27/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

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, Gail Barnes

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

12
13

GAIL BARNES,

14
15
16
17
18

Case No.: 2:15-cv-01026-RFB-PAL
Plaintiff;

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

19

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, GAIL BARNES, by and through their attorney of record, hereby

23

submits Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Dispositive Motions. This motion

24

is made under the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (hereinafter “FRCP”) rule 6(b)(1)(A) and

25

Nevada District Court Local Rules (hereinafter “LR”) 6-2 and 26-4. Defendant filed their Motion

26

for Summary Judgment on February 27, 2017. The current deadline for Plaintiff’s response is

27

March 29, 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: March 28, 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,
GAIL BARNES

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

5
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. 55, 2:4-

9

11).

10
11

On February 27, 2017, Defendant filed their Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No.
60). Defendant also filed three other Motions for Summary Judgment in the related cases.1

12

In Kaplan v. Eldorado Resorts Corporation, et al., the motion consisted of forty-three

13

pages and thirty-eight exhibits (ECF No. 57), a Notice of Filing (ECF No. 58) and Index of

14

Exhibits (ECF No. 58), totaling approximately 460 (four-hundred and sixty) pages. In Barnes v.

15

Eldorado Resorts Corporation, et al., the motion consisted of twenty-eight pages and thirty-five

16

exhibits (ECF No. 60), a Notice of Filing (ECF No. 62) and Index of Exhibits (ECF No. 61),

17

totaling approximately 407 (four-hundred and seven) pages. In Parr v. Eldorado Resorts

18

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

19

50), a Notice of Filing (ECF No. 52) and Index of Exhibits (ECF No. 51), totaling approximately

20

359 (three-hundred and fifty-nine) pages.
Since February 27, 2017, there’s been approximately sixteen depositions that took place

21
22

with another twelve depositions that were noticed and later continued. Furthermore, the Court

23

held a hearing on March 17, 2017, regarding Defendants’ Motions to Disqualify and Motion for

24
25
1

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., 2:15-cv-01028-RFBPAL (ECF No. 50); and Scheinburg v. Eldorado Resorts Corporation, et al., 2:15-cv-01031-RFB-PAL (ECF No.
63).

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

1

Summary Judgment in the Related Cases. On March 23, 2017, Defendant filed an additional five

2

motions for Summary Judgement in the Related Cases.2

3

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

4

29, 2017. (ECF No. 55). Plaintiff files this current motion seeking an additional two weeks of

5

time to provide a meaningful response to Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment.

6

II.

7

ARGUMENT

8

A. LEGAL STANDARD FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

9

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:

10
11

(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

12

(B) on motion made after the time has expired if the party failed to
act because of excusable neglect.

13
14
15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

statutory contexts." Id at 1259.
“Consequently, requests for extensions of time made before the applicable deadline has

21
22

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

23

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

24
25
2

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)
-4-

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

1
2

February 27, 2017. (ECF No. 60). Also on February 27, 2017, Plaintiff’s counsel was served

3

with three other motions for summary judgment in the Related Cases.3

4

Plaintiff has good cause to request this timely4 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 evidence5 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 Kaplan v. Eldorado Resorts Corporation, et al., the Motion for Summary

10

Judgment consists of forty-three pages and thirty-eight exhibits (ECF No. 57), a Notice of Filing

11

(ECF No. 58) and Index of Exhibits (ECF No. 58), totaling approximately 460 (four-hundred and

12

sixty) pages. In Barnes v. Eldorado Resorts Corporation, et al., the motion consists of twenty-

13

eight pages and thirty-five exhibits (ECF No. 60), a Notice of Filing (ECF No. 62) and Index of

14

Exhibits (ECF No. 61), totaling approximately 407 (four-hundred and seven) pages. In Parr v.

15

Eldorado Resorts Corporation, et al., the motion consists of thirty-one pages and thirty-one

16

exhibits (ECF No. 50), a Notice of Filing (ECF No. 52) and Index of Exhibits (ECF No. 51),

17

totaling approximately 359 (three-hundred and fifty-nine) pages.

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

position of needing an additional two weeks to respond to Defendants’ dispositive motions.

23
24
3

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).
4
Plaintiff’s deadline to respond to dispositive motions is March 29, 2017. (ECF No. 55)
5
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

III.

2

CONCLUSION

3
4

For the above stated reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests an extension of time for two
weeks to allow Plaintiff to file their responses to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment.

5
6
7

DATED: March 28, 2017

WATKINS & LETOFSKY, LLP

8
9
10
11
12
13
14

By:

/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, GAIL BARNES

15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED:

17

19

__________________________
RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II
United States District Judge

20

DATED this 27th day of April, 2017.

18

21
22
23
24
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

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

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

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 28th day of March, 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-