Maxson v. H&R Block, Inc.

Filing 31

ORDER that Plaintiff Kimberly A. Maxson's First Motion for an Expansion of Time to File Response(s) to Doc Nos. 19, 20, 23 and 24 (ECF No. 25 ) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as stated in this order. Plaintiff must file a response to De fendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration and Motion to Dismiss or Alternatively to Stay (ECF Nos. 19, 20) and Defendant's Motion to Stay Discovery (ECF No. 23) within 30 days from the date of this order. The court will defer ruling on Defenda nts motion to stay discovery until it is fully briefed. FURTHER ORDERED that 27 Motion to Exceed Page Limitation is GRANTED. FURTHER ORDERED that 24 Motion to Stay the Early Neutral Evaluation is GRANTED. FURTHER ORDERED that the Early Neutral Evaluation set for January 25, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. is VACATED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 1/4/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6
7
8
9
10
11

KIMBERLY A. MAXSON,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
H&R BLOCK, INC.,
)
)
Defendant.
)
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:16-cv-00152-APG-CWH
ORDER

12
13

Presently before the court is Defendant HRB Resources, LLC’s Motion to Stay Discovery

14

and the Early Neutral Evaluation Conference (ECF Nos. 23, 24), filed on November 16, 2016.

15

Plaintiff has requested a sixty-day extension of time to respond to this motion.

16

Also before the court is Plaintiff Kimberly A. Maxson’s First Motion for an Expansion of

17

Time to File Response(s) to Doc Nos. 19, 20, 23 and 24 (ECF No. 25), filed on November 30,

18

2016. Defendant filed a response (ECF No. 26) on December 5, 2016. Plaintiff filed a reply (ECF

19

No. 28) on December 15, 2016. Plaintiff filed an addendum (ECF No. 29) in support of this

20

motion on December 22, 2016.

21

Also before the court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Exceed Page Limitation (ECF No. 27), filed

22

on December 15, 2016. Defendant did not file a response.

23

I.

BACKGROUND

24

This is an employment dispute in which Plaintiff alleges Defendant discriminated against

25

her based on disability. (See Compl. (ECF No. 1).) Plaintiff asserts claims under the Americans

26

with Disabilities Act and state common law tort claims against Defendant. (Id. at 36-43.)

27

Defendant contends that Plaintiff signed an employment agreement with Defendant in which she

28

agreed to submit any dispute she had with Defendant to binding arbitration. (Mot. to Compel

1

Arbitration & Mot. to Dismiss or Alternatively to Stay (ECF Nos. 19, 20), Ex. A.) Defendant

2

therefore moves to compel arbitration and to dismiss this case. This motion is pending before the

3

United States district judge assigned to this case. Defendant also moved to stay discovery and the

4

early neutral evaluation (“ENE”) conference scheduled for January 25, 2017, pending the outcome

5

of its motion to compel arbitration and to dismiss. (Mot. to Stay Discovery & the ENE (ECF Nos.

6

23, 24).) Plaintiff requests a sixty-day extension of time to respond to Defendant’s pending

7

motions.

8

II.

9

MOTION TO EXTEND TIME (ECF No. 25)
Plaintiff requests a sixty-day extension of time to respond to Defendant’s motion to compel

10

arbitration and to dismiss and motion to stay discovery and the ENE conference. Although it is

11

somewhat unclear, the court understands Plaintiff to be requesting the extension because she has

12

encountered some technical difficulties with CM/ECF, the court’s electronic filing system, and

13

because the deadline to respond to Defendant’s motion to stay discovery and the ENE fell one day

14

before the deadline to respond to Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and to dismiss. She

15

also states that she has been subjected to “an increased amount of harassment that has obstructed

16

[her] from being able to file what [she] would have otherwise filed herein in support of a complete

17

stay if not an expansion of time as per this motion.” (Mot. to Extend Time (ECF No. 25) at 13.)

18

Additionally, she states that “the ENE with Judge Cam Ferenbach should be put on a stay while this

19

court and the appropriate federal authorities are fully informed of the criminal conduct that has

20

transpired . . . .” (Id. at 14.)

21

Defendant opposes this request, arguing that Plaintiff should not be given additional time to

22

oppose Defendant’s motion to stay discovery and the ENE because Plaintiff concedes that this

23

matter should be stayed. Defendant further argues Plaintiff should not be given additional time to

24

respond to the motion to compel arbitration and to dismiss because she does not articulate why an

25

extension is necessary. Additionally, Defendant states that if Plaintiff had time to prepare a

26

seventeen-page motion with 135 pages of exhibits for the purpose of requesting a sixty-day

27

extension, Plaintiff should have been able to oppose the motion.

28

///
2

1

In her reply, Plaintiff reiterates that she needs additional time to file a response to “[l]egally

2

address the harassment that has transpired in recent months and that increased recently . . . .”

3

(Reply (ECF No. 28) at 12.) She also argues for the first time on reply that she needs additional

4

time because tax season begins in January and she needs sufficient time to work. Finally, Plaintiff

5

reiterates that the early neutral evaluation should be stayed, and though she does not specifically

6

address the motion to stay discovery, liberally construing Plaintiff’s arguments, it appears Plaintiff

7

still seeks additional time to respond to Defendant’s pending motions.

8

The court has read and considered the parties’ arguments and will grant Plaintiff’s motion

9

in part and will deny Plaintiff’s motion in part. The court will give Plaintiff an additional thirty

10

days from the date of this order to respond to Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and to

11

dismiss and to Defendant’s motion to stay discovery. Although Plaintiff requests sixty days, given

12

that more than thirty days have passed since Plaintiff requested the extension, the court finds that a

13

thirty-day extension will provide Plaintiff sufficient time to prepare a response. Given that the

14

parties agree that the ENE conference should be stayed at this time, albeit for different reasons, the

15

court will vacate the ENE set for January 25, 2017 at 10:00 a.m.

16

III.

17

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE EXCESS PAGES (ECF No. 27)
Plaintiff requests leave of court to file a twenty-page reply brief in support of her motion to

18

extend time. Plaintiff states that good cause exists for extending the page limits because she

19

needed to cite various rules of civil procedure, professional conduct, and other statutes and cases.

20

The court does not find that this constitutes good cause to deviate from the twelve-page limit set

21

forth in Local Rule 7-3(a) because all litigants are similarly situated with regard to having to cite

22

legal authority. Given Plaintiff’s pro se status and the fact this is her first request to exceed page

23

limits, however, the court will grant Plaintiff’s motion. Plaintiff is advised that under Local Rule

24

7-3(c), the “court looks with disfavor on motions to exceed page limits, so permission to do so will

25

not be routinely granted.”

26

IV.

27
28

CONCLUSION
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff Kimberly A. Maxson’s First Motion for an

Expansion of Time to File Response(s) to Doc Nos. 19, 20, 23 and 24 (ECF No. 25) is GRANTED
3

1

in part and DENIED in part as stated in this order. Plaintiff must file a response to Defendant’s

2

Motion to Compel Arbitration and Motion to Dismiss or Alternatively to Stay (ECF Nos. 19, 20)

3

and Defendant’s Motion to Stay Discovery (ECF No. 23) within 30 days from the date of this order.

4

The court will defer ruling on Defendant’s motion to stay discovery until it is fully briefed.

5
6
7
8
9

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Exceed Page Limitation (ECF No.
27) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Stay the Early Neutral Evaluation
(ECF No. 24) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Early Neutral Evaluation set for January 25, 2017 at

10

10:00 a.m. is VACATED. If Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and to dismiss is denied,

11

the parties should jointly contact Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach’s chambers to reschedule the

12

early neutral evaluation session.

13
14

DATED: January 4, 2017

15
16

______________________________________
C.W. Hoffman, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4