Smith v. Kellogg Company et al

Filing 80

ORDER Granting 78 Stipulation for Extension of Time re 55 Motion to Compel. Defendantas' Replies due by 10/23/2017. Plaintiff has until 10/31/2017 to file a sur-reply no longer than five pages. Plaintiffs' 77 Motion to Strike Defendants' Reply to Motion to Compel Arbitration is Withdrawn. Signed by Judge Andrew P. Gordon on 10/25/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD) (Main Document 80 replaced on 10/26/2017) (SLD).

Case 2:17-cv-01914-APG-GWF Document 78 Filed 10/25/17 Page 1 of 5
80
4

1

GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP

2

Tami D. Cowden (8994)
[e-mail]
3773 Howard Hughes Parkway
Suite 400 North
Las Vegas, Nevada 89169
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

James N. Boudreau (PA 77891), pro hac vice
[e-mail]
Christiana L. Signs (PA 317851), pro hac vice
[e-mail]
2700 Two Commerce Square
2001 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
James Nelson (CA 116442), pro hac vice
[e-mail]
1201 K. Street, Suite 1100
Sacramento, CA 95814
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendants

16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

17

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

18
19

BRIAN SMITH, on behalf of himself and
those similarly situated persons,

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiffs,
v.
KELLOGG COMPANY and KELLOG
SALES COMPANY,

CASE NO. 2:17-cv-01914 APG-GWF
STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL
ARBITRATION (First Request); TO PROVIDE
FOR SUR-REPLY; AND TO WITHDRAW
PENDING MOTION TO STRIKE
ORDER

Defendants.

Case 2:17-cv-01914-APG-GWF Document 78 Filed 10/25/17 Page 2 of 5
80
4

1

Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 6-1(a), Defendants Kellogg Company and Kellogg Sales

2

Company’s (“Kellogg”) and Plaintiff Brian Smith (“Mr. Smith”), by and through their respective

3

counsel of record, hereby stipulate to an extension of time for Kellogg to file its reply in support

4

of Motion to Compel Arbitration (Dkt. 55, filed September 15, 2017) and to Mr. Smith’s filing of

5

a brief sur-reply, as follows:

6
7

WHEREFORE, on September 15, 2017, Kellogg filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration.
(Dkt. 55);

8

WHEREFORE, on September 21, 2017, Mr. Smith filed an unopposed motion to extend

9

time to file a response to the Motion to Compel Arbitration, extending the response deadline

10
11
12

from September 29, 2017 to October 6, 2017. (Dkt. 64);
WHEREFORE, on October 6, 2017, Mr. Smith filed an Opposition to Defendants’
Motion to Compel Arbitration. (Dkt. 71);

13

WHEREFORE, any reply by Kellogg was due on October 13, 2017;

14

WHEREFORE, counsel for Kellogg incorrectly calculated the new reply deadline,

15

inadvertently calendaring an incorrect deadline to file its reply in response to Mr. Smith’s

16

Opposition;

17
18

WHEREFORE, on October 23, 2017, Kellogg filed its Reply in Support of Motion to
Compel Arbitration. (Dkt. 75);

19

WHEREFORE, on October 24, 2017, Mr. Smith filed a Motion to Strike Defendants’

20

Reply to Motion to Compel Arbitration. (Dkt. 77). Mr. Smith argued Kellogg had filed the

21

reply out of time and has raised a new issue in its reply, namely: an “argument requesting that

22

the Court stay the proceeding pending a decision by the Supreme Court on appeal of the Morris

23

v. Ernst & Young, LLP, 834 F.3d 975 (9th Cir. 2016) decision.” (Dkt. 77 at 3);

24

WHEREFORE, on October 24, 2017, counsel conferred by way of telephone and email

25

and resolved the pending Motion to Strike Defendants’ Reply to Motion to Compel Arbitration

26

(Dkt. 77) by agreement;

27
28
1

Case 2:17-cv-01914-APG-GWF Document 78 Filed 10/25/17 Page 3 of 5
80
4

1

NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereby STIPULATE that:

2

1.

Kellogg’s time to file a reply in support of its Motion to Compel Arbitration is

3

hereby extended to October 23, 2017. Kellogg’s failure to file the reply before the previous

4

deadline expired was the result of excusable neglect as set forth above.

5

2.

Mr. Smith shall have until October 31, 2017 to file a sur-reply no longer than five

6

pages to address Kellogg’s argument that, if the Court does not compel arbitration, it should stay

7

the proceedings pending a decision by the Supreme Court on appeal of the Morris v. Ernst &

8

Young, LLP, 834 F.3d 975 (9th Cir. 2016) opinion.

9
10

3.

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike Defendants’ Reply to Motion to Compel Arbitration

(Dkt. 77) is hereby withdrawn.

11
12
13

DATED: October 25, 2017

14
15
16
17

Attorneys for Plaintiff

18
19

DATED: October 25, 2017

20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22
23
24
25
26
27

By: /s/ Michael J.D. Sweeney
Michael J.D. Sweeney, (pro hac vice)
Alex D. Dumas, ¶(pro hac vice)
GETMAN, SWEENEY & DUNN, PLLC
260 Fair Street
Kingston, NY 12401
Phone: [phone] / fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

_____________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: October 25, 2017.

By: /s/ Christiana L. Signs
James N. Boudreau (PA 77891) (pro hac vice)
[e-mail]
Christiana L. Signs (PA 317851) (pro hac vice)
[e-mail]
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
Two Commerce Square,
2001 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Tami D. Cowden (8994)
[e-mail]
3773 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 400 North
Las Vegas, Nevada 89169

28
2

Case 2:17-cv-01914-APG-GWF Document 78 Filed 10/25/17 Page 4 of 5
80
4

1
2
3
4

James Nelson (CA 116442) (pro hac vice)
[e-mail]
1201 K Street, Suite 1100
Sacramento, CA 95814
Attorneys for Defendants

5
6
7
8
9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED:
______________________________________
HON. ANDREW P. GORDON
United States District Judge
DATED: _______________________________

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3