Newman v. Eldorado Resorts Corporation et al

Filing 63

ORDER Granting 59 Motion to Extend Time to Respond re 55 Motion for Summary Judgment. Responses due by 7/14/2017. Signed by Judge Richard F. Boulware, II on 7/13/17. (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, Paula Newman

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

12
13

PAULA NEWMAN,

14
15
16
17
18
19

Case No.: 2:15-cv-01486-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 Third Request for an Extension to
Respond to Dispositive Motions]

20
21
22

COMES NOW, Plaintiff, PAULA NEWMAN, by and through their attorney of record,

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

filed their Motion for Summary Judgment on May 31, 2017. The current deadline for Plaintiff’s

27

response is June 30, 2017.

28
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANTS’
DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS (Third 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: June 24, 2017

WATKINS & LETOFSKY, LLP

7
8

By:

9
10
11
12
13
14
15

/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,
PAULA NEWMAN

16
17
18

ORDER

19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20
21
22
23

___________________________
RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II
United States District Judge
DATED: July 13, 2017.

24
25
26
27
28
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANTS’
DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS (Third 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. 51, 2:4-

9

1).

10
11

On May 31, 2017, Defendant filed their Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 55).
Defendant also filed three other Motions for Summary Judgment in the related cases.1

12

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

13

pages and fifty-three exhibits (ECF No. 55), a Notice of Filing (ECF No. 57) and Index of

14

Exhibits (ECF No. 56), totaling approximately 652 (six-hundred and fifty-two) pages. In Harel

15

v. Eldorado Resorts Corporation, et al., the motion consisted of thirty and twenty-nine exhibits

16

(ECF No. 48), a Notice of Filing (ECF No. 50) and Index of Exhibits (ECF No. 49), totaling

17

approximately 259 (two-hundred and fifty-nine) pages. In Courey v. Eldorado Resorts

18

Corporation, et al., the motion consisted of twenty-six pages and nineteen exhibits (ECF

19

No.47), a Notice of Filing (ECF No. 49) and Index of Exhibits (ECF No. 48), totaling

20

approximately 211 (two-hundred and eleven) pages. In Santovito. Eldorado Resorts

21

Corporation, et al., the motion consisted of thirty and twenty-eight exhibits (ECF No. 61), a

22

Notice of Filing (ECF No. 63) and Index of Exhibits (ECF No. 62), totaling approximately 489

23

(Four-hundred and eighty-nine) pages.

24
25
1

26
27

The Motions for Summary Judgment filed on May 31, 2017 are: Newman v. Eldorado Resorts Corporation, et al.,
2:15-cv-01486-RFB-PAL (ECF No. 55); Harel v. Eldorado Resorts Corporation, et al., 2:15-cv-01497-RFB-PAL
(ECF No. 48); Courey v. Eldorado Resorts Corporation, et al., 2:15-cv-01488-RFB-PAL (ECF No. 47); and
Santovito v. Eldorado Resorts Corporation, et al., 2:15-cv-01032-RFB-PAL (ECF No. 61).

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

1

On May 15, 2017, Watkins & Letofsky lost their associate, Amy Buchanan, due to a

2

string of ongoing medical issues. While Amy Buchanan was kept off the Related Cases as a

3

courtesy to Defense counsel, the firm had to redistribute her case load amongst the two Nevada

4

partners and remaining Nevada associate. This caused a delay in the cases the firm is handling.

5

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

6

30, 2017. Plaintiff files this current motion seeking an extension until July 14, 2017 to provide a

7

meaningful response to Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment.

8

II.

9

ARGUMENT

10
11
12
13
14
15

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.

16
17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

statutory contexts." Id at 1259.

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

May 31, 2017. Also on May 31, 2017, Plaintiff’s counsel was served with three other motions

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

1

for summary judgment in the Related Cases.2 Two weeks earlier, Plaintiff’s counsel lost one of

2

their two Nevada associates.

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

causes of action in these specific cases.

8
9

In Newman v. Eldorado Resorts Corporation, et al., the motion consisted of thirty-one
pages and fifty-three exhibits (ECF No. 55), a Notice of Filing (ECF No. 57) and Index of

10

Exhibits (ECF No. 56), totaling approximately 652 (six-hundred and fifty-two) pages. In Harel

11

v. Eldorado Resorts Corporation, et al., the motion consisted of thirty and twenty-nine exhibits

12

(ECF No. 48), a Notice of Filing (ECF No. 50) and Index of Exhibits (ECF No. 49), totaling

13

approximately 259 (two-hundred and fifty-nine) pages. In Courey v. Eldorado Resorts

14

Corporation, et al., the motion consisted of twenty-six pages and nineteen exhibits (ECF

15

No.47), a Notice of Filing (ECF No. 49) and Index of Exhibits (ECF No. 48), totaling

16

approximately 211 (two-hundred and eleven) pages. In Santovito. Eldorado Resorts

17

Corporation, et al., the motion consisted of thirty and twenty-eight exhibits (ECF No. 61), a

18

Notice of Filing (ECF No. 63) and Index of Exhibits (ECF No. 62), totaling approximately 489

19

(Four-hundred and eighty-nine) pages.

20

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

21

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

22

impractical within the deadlines that the parties originally contemplated. Using the Related

23

Cases as a guide, it suggests that Plaintiff’s counsel needs on average an extra two weeks over

24
25
26
27
28

2

The Motions for Summary Judgment filed on May 31, 2017 are: Newman v. Eldorado Resorts Corporation, et al.,
2:15-cv-01486-RFB-PAL (ECF No. 55); Harel v. Eldorado Resorts Corporation, et al., 2:15-cv-01497-RFB-PAL
(ECF No. 48); Courey v. Eldorado Resorts Corporation, et al., 2:15-cv-01488-RFB-PAL (ECF No. 47); and
Santovito v. Eldorado Resorts Corporation, et al., 2:15-cv-01032-RFB-PAL (ECF No. 61)
3
Plaintiff’s deadline to respond to dispositive motions is June 30, 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 (Third Request)
-5-

1

the current 30 days’ that the parties originally contemplated. Furthermore, the ongoing issues

2

medical issues with one of their Nevada associates have added an additional strain to the office.

3

Consequently, Plaintiff needs additional time to file their opposition. Plaintiff believes that they

4

can have their opposition and the three oppositions in the Related Cases completed by

5

approximately July 14, 2017.

6

III.

7

CONCLUSION

8
9
10

For the above stated reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests an extension of time until
approximately July 14, 2017, to allow Plaintiff to file their responses to Defendants’ Motion for
Summary Judgment.

11
12
13

DATED: June 24th, 2017

WATKINS & LETOFSKY, LLP

14
15

By:

16
17
18
19
20

/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, PAULA NEWMAN

21
22
23
24
25
26
27

ORDER
IT IS SO ORDERED.
__________________________
RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II
United States District Judge
DATE: July 13, 2017.

28
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANTS’
DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS (Third 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

Executed on this 30th day of June, 2017 at Newport Beach, California.

16
17
18
19

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

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANTS’
DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS (Third Request)
-7-