Pinchuk v. CIT Bank et al

Filing 105

ORDER granting 103 Motion to Extend Time to File. Proposed Joint Pretrial Order due by 12/12/2018. Signed by Judge Richard F. Boulware, II on 11/9/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

BRIAN C. VANDERHOOF (10463)
LECLAIRRYAN LLP
725 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 350
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Tel: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
DAVID V. WILSON II (10278)
MEHAFFY WEBER PC
400 South 4th Street, Suite 500
Las Vegas, NV 89101
Tel: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendant
CIT BANK, N.A.

10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

STATE OF NEVADA

12
13

STEVEN G. PINCHUK,

14

Plaintiff,

15
16
17

vs.
CIT BANK, N.A.; and EQUIFAX, INC.,

18

Defendants.

Case No:

2:16-cv-02986-RFB-GWF

Hon. Richard F. Boulware
MOTION TO CONTINUE TIME
TO FILE THE PROPOSED
PRETRIAL CONFERENCE
ORDER (Second Request)

19
20
21
22
23
24

Defendant CIT Bank, N.A. (“CIT”), through its attorney Brian C.

25

Vanderhoof, Esq. with the law firm of LeClairRyan, hereby requests, under Local

26

Rule IA 6-1 and Judge Boulware’s Court Rules, that the Court extend the time for

27

the parties to file their Proposed Pretrial Order by an additional 28 days. This is the

28

second request.

2:16-cv-02986-RFB-GWF
1
MOTION TO CONTINUE THE DEADLINE TO FILE
THE PROPOSED PRETRIAL CONFERENCE ORDER

1

On September 20, 2018, the Court heard and decided CIT’s Motion for

2

Summary Judgment. After granting the motion in part and following the lengthy

3

hearing, the Court Ordered the parties to file their proposed pretrial order within 30

4

days. On October 18, 2018, CIT made its first timely request for a brief extension

5

of that deadline because it had then not heard from the plaintiff, Steven Pinchuk

6

(“Plaintiff”). The court granted the request and set November 12, 2018 as the

7

deadline to file the proposed pretrial conference order.

8

At 3:31 p.m. on Friday, November 2, 2018, Plaintiff emailed a draft joint

9

pretrial order to CIT. The draft joint pretrial order appeared to have been hastily put

10

together insofar as it identified more than 1,200 pages of trial exhibits for what was

11

anticipated to be a one to two day trial. The transmittal email also explained, in

12

essence, that that Plaintiff’s counsel, a small firm, had lost some of its staff and

13

associate help this past month creating difficulties. (See Exhibit A.) As of this

14

writing, counsel have been unable to conduct the mandatory Rule 16-3 conference

15

to discuss settlement or the fact and exhibit stipulations. It appears unlikely that

16

this meeting will occur in time to meet the current filing deadline given that

17

Defense counsel has not been able to connect with Plaintiff’s counsel save for the

18

attached transmittal.

19

Good cause exists for the relief requested herein as this request is not made

20

for purpose of delay or any other improper purpose. Among other reasons, good

21

cause exists because the proposed pretrial order is currently due on November 12,

22

2018 and, while Plaintiff has recently delivered a first rough draft of the proposed

23

joint pretrial order, there is insufficient time for CIT to meaningfully weigh in on

24

the papers following the required meeting of counsel. Moreover, it appears that the

25

Local Rule 16-3 meetings are not likely to occur in the next two business days

26

leaving CIT with no opportunity to meaningfully discuss the issues or settlement.

27

Moreover, even if the parties were able to commence the Local Rule 16-3 meetings

28

this week there will be insufficient time to allow CIT representatives to
2:16-cv-02986-RFB-GWF
2
MOTION TO CONTINUE THE DEADLINE TO FILE
THE PROPOSED PRETRIAL CONFERENCE ORDER

1

meaningfully offer input into the required filing. Such a result would be unduly

2

prejudicial to CIT because the document will shape the direction of the trial.

3

Furthermore, because the trial date has not been set there will be no prejudice to

4

any party by this brief request to continue the filing deadline. Indeed, a well

5

prepared proposed pretrial order will help the parties streamline the trial which will

6

benefit not only the parties, but more importantly the Court and the jurors.

7

Plaintiff’s counsel has not responded to either the telephonic or email request

8

to stipulate to the relief requested by this motion. As a result, it is unclear whether

9

Plaintiff opposes the requested relief. At a minimum, Plaintiff has not articulated

10

any basis by which she may be prejudiced from the proposed continuance and, in

11

fact, will likely benefit from a continuance given that Plaintiff does not appear to be

12

in a position to timely file the proposed pretrial order that is due in three court days.

13

For the foregoing reasons, CIT respectfully requests that the Court grant the

14

present motion and enter an order continuing the time to file the proposed pretrial

15

order from November 12, 2018 to December 12, 2018.

16

DATED: November 8, 2018

17

LECLAIRRYAN, LLP
By:

18
19
20
21

/s/ Brian C. Vanderhoof
BRIAN C. VANDERHOOF, ESQ. (10463)
725 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 350
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Tel: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
ORDER

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the parties shall file their joint proposed
pretrial order on or before December 12, 2018.
IT IS SO ORDERED:

__________________________
RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II.
United States District Judge
November 9, 2018
Dated:__________________________

2:16-cv-02986-RFB-GWF
3
MOTION TO CONTINUE THE DEADLINE TO FILE
THE PROPOSED PRETRIAL CONFERENCE ORDER

Anchante, Graciela
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:

Vernon Nelson <[e-mail]>
Friday, November 02, 2018 3:31 PM
Vanderhoof, Brian C.
RE: Pinchuk v. CIT
Pinchuk Pretrial Order Draft JG.DOC

Importance:

High

Hi Brian- Hope you are well. I am very sorry for the delay. We have been short-handed and at the beginning of the month an
Associate and our best secretary were recruited away by one of the big firms in town…so I have had to cover a lot on my own.
Not a lot of sleep either.
Thankfully, I recently hired 2 Associates and they are helping me a catch up. One of the Associates help put together the draft
attached. I have not had a chance to review…so I may have some changes…but it is definitely good enough to get to you so you
can do you part.
Let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks
Vernon Nelson
The Law Office of Vernon Nelson
9480 S. Eastern Ave., Suite 252
Las Vegas, NV 89123
702-476-2500 (Office)
702-476-3735 (Direct)
702-476-2788 (Fax)
702-525-7884 (Cell)
[e-mail]
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission (and/or the attachments accompanying it) may contain confidential information belonging to the sender which is protected
by the attorney-client privilege. The information is intended only for the use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. Any unauthorized interception of this
transmission is illegal. If you have received this transmission in error, please promptly notify the sender by reply e-mail, and then destroy all copies of the transmission.
IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE:” To ensure compliance with recently enacted U.S. Treasury Department regulations, we hereby advise you that, unless otherwise expressly stated,
any and all tax advice contained in this communication has neither been written nor intended by the sender or this firm for the use of any taxpayer for the purpose of evading or
avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed pursuant to U.S. law. Furthermore, unless otherwise expressly indicated, the use of any tax advice contained in this communication
has neither been written nor intended by the sender or this firm for the purpose of promoting, marketing, or recommending a partnership or other entity, investment plan or
arrangement to any taxpayer, and such taxpayer should seek advice on the taxpayer’s particular circumstances from an independent tax advisor.

From: Vanderhoof, Brian C. <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2018 4:38 PM
To: Vernon Nelson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Pinchuk v. CIT
1

Vernon,
I left a message at you office just now. We have a joint pretrial report due fairly soon and I have not received your proposed
draft. Rather than scramble to put it together at the last minute, let me know whether you will stipulate to a two week
extension to file. This will also give us a chance to determine whether this matter is suitable for settlement or whether we will
actually need to try the case.
Thanks,
Brian

Brian C. Vanderhoof
Attorney at Law
LECLAIRRYAN
725 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 350
Los Angeles, California 90017
[phone] Direct
[phone] Fax
[phone] Mobile
[e-mail]
https://www.leclairryan.com
LeClairRyan, LLP is a Delaware Limited Liability Partnership
Please consider the environment before printing this email.

* This e-mail may contain confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender
immediately by return e-mail with a copy to [e-mail] and delete this e-mail and all copies and
attachments.

2