Torres v. Bellagio, LLC et al

Filing 48

ORDER Granting 47 Stipulation for Extension of Time re 46 Motion for Summary Judgment. Responses due by 6/22/2018. Replies due by 7/23/2018. Signed by Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey on 5/16/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MR)

Case 2:17-cv-01025-JAD-VCF Document 47 Filed 05/12/18 Page 1 of 3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

JAMES P. KEMP, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No.: 006375
VICTORIA L. NEAL, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No.: 13382
KEMP & KEMP
7435 West Azure Drive, Suite 110
Las Vegas, NV 89130
[phone] / [phone] Fax
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Hector Torres

9
10
11

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
7435 W. Azure Drive, Suite 110
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89130
Tel. [phone] ♦ Fax [phone]

KEMP & KEMP

14
15
16

Case No. 2:17-cv-01025-JAD-VCF

HECTOR TORRES,
Plaintiff,

12
13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER TO EXTEND RESPONSE AND
REPLY DISPOSITIVE MOTION
DEADLINES

vs.
BELLAGIO, LLC, a Nevada corporation;
ROE Business Organizations I-X; and, DOE
INDIVIDUALS I-X, inclusive,

ECF No.REQUEST)
(FIFTH 47

Defendants.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Pursuant to Local Rules IA 6-1 and 26-4, Plaintiff HECTOR TORRES (“Plaintiff”) by
and through his counsel, Kemp & Kemp, and Defendant BELLAGIO, LLC (“Defendant”), by
and through its counsel, Jackson Lewis P.C., hereby stipulate to amend the Discovery Plan and
Scheduling Order (ECF No. 35) and Order Granting Stipulation to Extend Discovery Deadlines
(Fourth Request) (ECF No. 45) by extending the deadline to file both the response and rely to
dispositive motions as set forth below.
This is the fifth request for an extension to the discovery plan and scheduling order in this
matter. The parties’ prior requests have sought additional time to conduct discovery which in
turn affected the deadline to file dispositive motions under FRCP 56. Thereafter, the parties
stipulated to an extension of time for Defendant’s to file its Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF

28
1

Case 2:17-cv-01025-JAD-VCF Document 47 Filed 05/12/18 Page 2 of 3

1
2
3
4
5

No. 45. This extension does not seek additional time to conduct discovery, and is sought in good
faith and not for purposes of delay. The request to extend the deadlines is subject to the good
standard as the request is made less 21 days prior to its expiration. LR 26-4. Good cause exist to
extend the deadline as several unanticipated interceding events have occurred which necessitates
the parties’ request.

6
7
8
9
10
11

KEMP & KEMP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
7435 W. Azure Drive, Suite 110
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89130
Tel. [phone] ♦ Fax [phone]

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
I.

LEGAL ARGUMENT
Under Rule 6(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court may, for good

cause, extend a deadline if the request is made before the deadline expires. Similarly, under Rule
16(b)(4), a deadline set forth in a scheduling order may be modified for good cause. The good
cause inquiry focuses on the moving party’s diligence. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc.,
975 F.2d 604, 608-09 (9th Cir. 1992). Although Local Rule 26-4 requires all motions to extend a
deadline set forth in a scheduling order to be filed no later than 21 days before the expiration of
the subject deadline, the underlying rationale of the Local Rule is not implicated here because the
parties have entered into the instant stipulation. See Woods v. Quintana, No. 2:13-cv-01314APG-CWH, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50889, at *6 (D. Nev. Apr. 15, 2016) (“Part of the
underlying rationale for Local Rule 26-4 is to avoid the situation in which the Court” has to
“attempt to decide a motion to extend a deadline before there has been time for the opposing party
to respond to the motion.”).
Here, good cause exists to extend both the response and reply deadlines relating to the
filing of Defendant’s Motion for Summary judgment on May 4, 2018. ECF No. 46. The
undersigned Counsel for Plaintiff is currently engaged in preparations for arbitration in another
case to take place the week of May 21, 2018, in Los Angeles, CA. That case has been extremely
contentious and the past several weeks have seen unexpected depositions ordered and taken and
unexpected discovery motion practice. The parties are now engaged in pre-trial motion practice,
as well as preparing for the arbitration hearing itself. Since May 4, 2018, through May 25, 2018,
Plaintiff’s counsel has had to, or going forward will have to, prepare a reply brief for the Ninth

28
2

Case 2:17-cv-01025-JAD-VCF Document 47 Filed 05/12/18 Page 3 of 3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

Circuit Court of Appeals, prepare for and attend four (4) Early Neutral Evaluations/Settlement
Conferences, and two out of state depositions. After the arbitration hearing and travel back to Las
Vegas on May 25, 2018, Counsel has a preplanned vacation scheduled. Accordingly, the parties
respectfully request that Plaintiff’s deadline to respond to Defendant’s Motion for Summary
Judgment be extended from its current deadline of May 25, 2018, to June 22, 2018.
Extending the deadline for Plaintiff to file his response necessarily requires Defendant’s
reply date be extended. Defendant’s counsel will be traveling for a few weeks during what would
be the usual reply time. Accordingly, the parties respectfully request that Defendant’s deadline to
reply be extended from what the deadline would be (calculated from the above date requested for
Plaintiff’s extension) of July 6, 2018, to July 23, 2018.

KEMP & KEMP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
7435 W. Azure Drive, Suite 110
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89130
Tel. [phone] ♦ Fax [phone]

12

.
Dated: May 12, 2018

Dated: May 12, 2018

13

Respectfully submitted,

Respectfully submitted,

____/s/ Victoria L. Neal______________
JAMES P. KEMP, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 6375
VICTORIA L. NEAL, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 13382
KEMP & KEMP
7435 W. Azure Drive, Suite 110
Las Vegas, NV 89130

_____/s/ Joshua A. Silker________________
DEVERIE J. CHRISTENSEN, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 6596
JOSHUA A. SLIKER, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 12493
JACKSON LEWIS, P.C.
3800 Howard Hughes Parkway, Ste. 600
Las Vegas, Nevada 89169

Attorneys for Plaintiff
Hector Torres

Attorneys for Defendant
Bellagio, LLC

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER
Based on the parties' stipulation [ECF No. 47] and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY
IT motion for summary
ORDERED that the deadline to file the response to the IS SO ORDERED. judgment [ECF No.
46] is extended to 6/22/18, and the deadline for reply is extended to 7/23/18. The parties are
Dated: _____________________, 2018.
cautioned, however, that counsel's workload and professional calendar conflicts will not constitute
good cause for further extensions of these deadlines.
____________________________________
HON. CAM FERENBACH
_________________________________
___ _________ _
_
_____
UNITED ________________
STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
U.S. District Ju ge Jennifer A. D
Judge
ct Ju
Judg Jennifer A Dorsey
f
Dated: May 16 2018
y 16,

3