Vidal et al v. Verizon Pension Plan for Associates et al

Filing 139

ORDER granting 138 Unopposed Motion to Extend all Discovery Deadlines. Discovery due by 12/30/2024. Motions due by 1/29/2025. Proposed Joint Pretrial Order due by 2/28/2025. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brenda Weksler on 5/8/2024. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - CT)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

IKENNA ODUNZE, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 9885
ODUNZE & SWANIGAN
ODUNZE PLLC
3651 Lindell Road Suite D #142
Las Vegas Nevada 89103
Telephone No. 702-943-0305
Facsimile No. 702-943-0233
Email: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
MICHAEL A. VIDAL and
ESTATE OF EVA RAMOS
(through its Administrator
JESSICA CLEMENTE)

10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

MICHAEL A. VIDAL, an individual, et al.

)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
vs.
)
)
VERIZON PENSION PLAN FOR
)
ASSOCIATES, ((Plan No. 16), an entity under)
ERISA)), et al.
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO.: 2:22-cv-00274-ART-BNW
UNOPPOSED
PLAINTIFFS’ MICHAEL A. VIDAL AND
ESTATE OF EVA RAMOS (THROUGH
ITS ADMINISTRATOR JESSICA
CLEMENTE) UNOPPOSED MOTION TO
EXTEND ALL DISCOVERY DEADLINES
FED. R. CIV. P. 6(B), LR IA 6-2 & LR 26-3
RELIEF ON ORDER SHORTENING
TIME
(SIXTH REQUEST)

21
22

COMES NOW Plaintiffs MICHAEL VIDAL and the ESTATE OF EVA RAMOS

23

(through its Administrator JESSICA CLEMENTE) by and through the law office of ODUNZE

24

PLLC and its attorney IKENNA ODUNZE, ESQ. and pursuant to LR IA 6-2, LR 26-3, LR 26-6,

25
26
27

Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 and any other applicable rule (that is favorable to the Plaintiffs) submit this
UNOPPOSED motion (“Motion”) for an approximately four month extension. This is a sixth

28

1

1

request of the extension of the aforesaid deadlines (however the only the fifth request came prior

2

to the hearing of motions to dismiss).

3
4
5

This Motion is based upon the papers (including but not limited to the below declaration)
and any favorable pleadings on file herein, the attached memorandum of points and authorities,

6

and any argument favorable to the Plaintiffs which the Court may entertain in its review or

7

hearing thereon.

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

DATED this 7th day of May 2024.
ODUNZE PLLC
__/s/Ikenna Odunze/_______________
Ikenna Odunze, Esq.
ODUNZE & SWANIGAN
ODUNZE PLLC
3651 Lindell Road Suite D #142
Las Vegas Nevada 89103
Telephone No. 702-943-0305
Facsimile No. 702-943-0233
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
MICHAEL A. VIDAL and
ESTATE OF EVA RAMOS
(through its Administrator
JESSICA CLEMENTE)

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

1
2
3
4

ATTORNEY IKENNA ODUNZE’S 28 U.S.C. § 1746 MEET AND CONFER
CERTIFICATION AND DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF ORDER SHORTENING
I, IKENNA ODUNZE pursuant 28 U.S.C.§1746 declare that:
1. I am above the age of eighteen years, and I am competent to testify and attest to the

5

matters set forth in this declaration and I have personal knowledge of the matters set forth

6

herein, that the same are true (and accurate) to the best of my own knowledge except for

7

those matters therein stated on information and belief, and as for those matters I believe

8
9

them to be true (and accurate).

10

2. My name is Ikenna Odunze.

11

3. I am the attorney of record for the above captioned named Plaintiffs in the above

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

captioned matter, Case No.: 2:22-cv-00274-ART-BNW (hereinafter referred to as the
“Case”).
4. I filed the enclosed motion to extend (hereinafter referred to as the “Motion”) all the
discovery deadlines by approximately four months,
5. I first requested the Defendants for the referenced extension in March 29, 2024 and April
1, 2024 communications.
6. On May 7, 2024, meet-and-confer telephone conferences (wherein defendants’ counsel

21

and I conferred) were held to discuss the extension request and discovery. Attorney

22

Edward Perrin, Esq. and I participated in the first aforesaid meet-and-confer and then

23

Attorney James Hollihan, Esq. and I participated in a separate meet-and-confer.

24
25
26
27
28

7. The Defendant attorneys stated that as a matter of professional courtesy the Defendants
do not oppose the Plaintiffs’ requested approximately four-month extension. I mentioned
that I would include such verbiage within this motion.
8. The Defendants’ counsel mentioned that they would not oppose the extension request

3

1
2
3
4
5

however their preference was that I file motion as opposed to the parties doing an SAO.
9. I (Plaintiffs’ counsel have been undergoing an incredibly painful lower body condition
which is being assessed by physicians) that has overlapped with the preceding and
ongoing discovery time and makes it difficult to walk, stand, sit, ambulate etc (and in the

6

same period has undergone corneal inflammation affecting vision). and those occurrences

7

are some of the concurrent reasons for the referenced request for extension as the

8

conditions makes all matters and task require more time). The condition (and the scope,

9
10
11

magnitude and impact of it) was unexpected, unanticipated and outside of the parties and
plaintiffs’ counsel’s control.

12

10. If further extensions are necessary I will associate additional counsel to assist.

13

11. The 21-day cut off for nearest cut-off is today and that is good cause to grant the enclosed

14
15
16

motion on order shortening time, amongst the reasons and factors discussed in the
motion.

17

12. The enclosed motion is not filed for the purpose of delay.

18

13. The factual statements preceding this declaration are true and accurate.

19

14. I declare and state under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

20

15. I submit the foregoing declaration pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§1746.

21
22
23
24

FURTHER YOUR DECLARANT SAYETH NAUGHT
Executed on ____05/07/2024_________
(DATE)

______/s/Ikenna Odunze, Esq._________
Signature IKENNA ODUNZE, ESQ

25
26
27
28

4

1
2
3

POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
I. INTRODUCTION & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

4

The instant action (hereinafter referred to as the “Action” or the “instant Action”)

5

concerns a multiparty ERISA litigation wherein ERISA 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3) make-whole and

6
7
8
9

equitable surcharge relief are requested by the Plaintiffs for breaches of fiduciary duty
amounting to statutory violations of ERISA that are actionable under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3).
The Action was initiated on February 14, 2022. The initial complaint was amended as of

10

right on February 18, 2022. The Complaint was amended March 8, 2022 (again, hereinafter

11

referred to as “Second Amended Complaint” or “SAC” or “last operative complaint”), See

12
13
14

Docket No. 10 through10-6. Seven appearing defendants (hereinafter referred to as the “Verizon
Defendants”) filed a motion to dismiss at ECF No. 42 (hereinafter referred to as the “Verizon

15

MTD”) on June 17, 2022 while the another four appearing defendants (hereinafter referred to as

16

the “Conduent Defendants”) filed their own motion to dismiss at ECF No. 44 (hereinafter

17

referred to as the “Conduent MTD”) on the same day. The Defendants’ motions to dismiss were

18
19

opposed by the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs also filed motions for leave to amend. Defendant

20

Patricia subsequently appeared in this case at beginning of last year and requested a dismissal on

21

January 31, 2023, which the Plaintiffs filed an oppositions to. A scheduling order was issued on

22

September 13, 2022. See ECF No. 92.

23
24
25
26
27

A previous extension (the first request) of all discovery deadlines was requested by the
Plaintiffs around April 6, 2023 and was GRANTED by Court on May 1, 2023.
On April 27, 2023 the Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend with an attached
proposed third amended complaint (PCOMP) which was GRANTED on May 25, 2023.

28

5

1
2
3
4
5

On May 25, 2023 and May 26, 2023 the Court said the Third Amended Complaint was
the operative complaint and should be published on to the docket.
On June 8, 2022 the Verizon Defendants answered the Third Amended Complaint.
On June 17, 2023 the Third Amended Complaint was published on to the Docket.

6

On June 22, 2025 the Conduent Defendants answered the Third Amended Complaint.

7

The Court granted an extension in ECF No. 127 and since that date voluminous

8
9
10

(thousands of pages) of records have been assessed.
There are 14 named parties in this Case and thousands of pages of records and documents

11

were exchange in preceding months of this year and thousand of pages of records (and

12

documents) have been assessed in discovery period preceding today.

13
14
15
16

On March 6, 2024 the Court granted the Plaintiffs’ last unopposed motion (ECF Nos 136
and 137) to extend discovery deadlines.
Subsequently, the Plaintiffs sent correspondence to the Defendants’ counsel requesting

17

four-month extension, the Defendants indicated that they were fine with an approximately four-

18

month extension (and that as a matter of professional courtesy the Defendants do not oppose the

19

Plaintiffs’ requested approximately four-month extension) but that they preferred the Plaintiffs

20

procure the extension via motion as opposed to SAO.

21
22
23

II. LAW, ARGUMENT & LR 26As mentioned in ECF Nos. 125 and 136 the records, documents, files and recordings

24

exchanged-and-received in matter are voluminous and despite diligently working through

25

records, documents, recordings etc in preceding discovery time the Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ law firm

26

is relatively small further that last five months have overlapped with events outside of the

27
28

Plaintiffs’ (and Plaintiffs’ counsel’s) control. This Moton is first-and-foremost a request for that

6

1

discovery be extended by approximately four months or approximately (if an approximately four

2

month extension is for some reason not granted/permitted then an alternatively extension as close

3
4
5

to four months is requested); Attorney Ikenna Odunze, Esq’s above declaration and certification
are incorporated by reference (“Odunze Decl.”) as if fully set forth herein.

6

II. LR 26-3 (a) A STATEMENT SPECIFYING THE DISCOVERY COMPLETED;

7

Since the last discovery scheduling order thousands of pages of documents/records have

8
9
10

been assessed (many of them complex in nature).
Plaintiffs served the Defendants initial disclosures on July 29, 2022. Plaintiffs were

11

served with initial disclosures on September 30, 2022. The ESTATE OF EVA RAMOS (through

12

its Administrator JESSICA CLEMENTE) on April 6, 2023 propounded and served Fed. R. Civ.

13

P Rule 33 interrogatories on the following defendants PATRICIA; CONDUENT BUSINESS

14

SERVICES, LLC; VERIZON PENSION PLAN FOR ASSOCIATES, (Plan No. 16); and

15
16

VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC.
The ESTATE OF EVA RAMOS (through its Administrator JESSICA CLEMENTE) on

17
18

April 6, 2023 propounded and served Fed. R. Civ. P Rule 34 request for production on the

19

following defendants PATRICIA; CONDUENT BUSINESS SERVICES, LLC; VERIZON

20

PENSION PLAN FOR ASSOCIATES, (Plan No. 16); and VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

INC.
Both Conduent Defendants and Verizon Defendants answered the Plaintiffs above
discovery request on May 8, 2023.
On May 18, 2023, the Conduent Defendants amended their discovery responses.
On April 27, 2023 the Conduent Defendants propounded Interrogatories, Request for
Admission and Request for Production on the Plaintiffs to which the Plaintiffs responded to on

7

1
2
3
4
5

May 30, 2023 and June 16, 2023.
July 2023 Depositions were scheduled for Defendants Kevin Cammarata and Patricia
Bryant however are being moved to later dates – the holidays impacted witness availability.
In 2024 the Plaintiffs’ counsel has been undergoing an incredibly painful lower body

6

condition which is being assessed by physicians that has overlapped with the preceding and

7

ongoing discovery time and makes it difficult to walk, stand, sit, ambulate etc.(additionally over

8

the last two months Plaintiffs’ lead counsel experienced inflamed corneal condition impacting

9
10

vision) and those occurrences are some of the concurrent reasons for the referenced request for

11

extension as the conditions makes all matters and task require more time; the aforesaid condition

12

was unexpected, unanticipated and outside of the parties’ and plaintiffs’ counsel’s control.

13
14
15
16

The Defendants agreed that they would not oppose this motion and the request for the
approximately four-month extension.
III.

LR 26-3 (b) A SPECIFIC DESCRIPTION OF THE DISCOVERY THAT
REMAINS TO BE COMPLETED:

17
18
19
20
21
22

Since the last scheduling order multiple thousands of pages documents/records were
assessed.
The Plaintiffs are working on letters concerning further responses to the discovery the
Plaintiffs’ previously sent, and the Plaintiffs have begun preparation of additional written

23

discovery much of will be concentrated on the Defendants’ respective recent June 8, 2023 and

24

June 22, 2023 answers-and-affirmative defenses to the Third Amended Complaint amongst other

25

issues and subject matter.

26
27
28

The Defendants’ answers-and-affirmative defenses were filed in June of 2023. Multiple
thousands of pages of documents were propounded and the assessment, review and analysis of

8

1

records, documents recordings, transcripts and other discovery is still ongoing. The Plaintiffs

2

anticipate and plan on propounding additional interrogatories and requests for production on the

3
4
5

Defendants and taking the depositions of Patricia Bryant, Kevin Cammarata, Patricia Bryant’
supervisors and Fed. R. Civ. 30(b)(6) persons most knowledgeable from the entity the

6

Defendants. However, in the Plaintiffs’ view judicial economy and costs make it suggestable to

7

wait until after the Defendants provide further responses to areas the Plaintiffs elaborate they

8

want further responses to on already propounded discovery.

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

Each Defendant served thousands of documents prior to answering the Third Amended
Complaint and therefore the Plaintiffs’ side assessment and review is still ongoing.
Parties are still assessing if experts will be needed (if any) and Plaintiffs’ are still
assessing financing for any such experts.
As referenced above, since the last discovery scheduling order thousands of pages of
documents/records have been assessed (many of them complex in nature).
IV.

LR 26-3(c)THE REASONS WHY THE DEADLINE WAS NOT SATISFIED
OR THE REMAINING DISCOVERY WAS NOT COMPLETED WITHIN
THE TIME LIMITS SET BY THE DISCOVERY PLAN;

20

None of the discovery deadlines have passed/expired. There are 14 named parties in this

21

matter and initial answers were just filed this year. Many of the current discovery dates still fall

22

near to Holidays and/or coincide with unexpected overlapping trial-dates/casework (which the

23
24
25

requested extension will help avoid) and each of the parties have each assessed voluminous
pages of records (and multiple complex issues) concerning this instant matter in the preceding

26

months of 2023 (this case was filed in 2022 and the last motions to dismiss were not heard until

27

May 2023) while also contending with overlapping cases (and trial schedules), also witness

28

9

1

availability in overlapping periods was an issue. Additionally unexpected unavoidable

2

overlapping arbitration was filed in an unrelated case. In 2024 the Plaintiffs’ counsel has been

3
4
5

undergoing an incredibly painful lower body condition that is being by assessed by physicians
that has overlapped with the preceding and ongoing discovery time and makes it difficult to

6

walk, stand, sit, ambulate etc. (over the last two months a temporary inflammatory corneal

7

condition impacting vision also overlapped the discovery period) and those occurrences are some

8

of the concurrent reasons for the referenced request for extension as the conditions makes all

9
10

matters and task require more time; the aforesaid conditions were unexpected, unanticipated and

11

outside of the parties and plaintiffs’ counsel’s control.. Considering the foregoing including the

12

numerous upcoming intervening Holidays, witness unavailability/availability, unanticipated

13

overlapping (or prior) trial conflicts of counsel, travel needs, health/health-needs, unanticipated

14

overlapping trial dates (and preparation), law firm sizes and other issues discussed hereunder

15
16
17
18

(and in emails exchanged between the Stipulating Parties) an additional four month extension is
needed and requested to complete discovery and thus necessitated this extension request.
As stated above the twelve Defendants’ answers-and-affirmative defenses were filed in

19

June 2023 and Defendants provided multiple thousands of pages of records to Plaintiffs in

20

preceding months of this year. The previous period was utilized to assess claims, extensive

21
22
23

voluminous records and evidence (and to prepare discovery), and more time is needed for the
parties to complete discovery.

24

The request and grant of the request is judicially economic. Much of the prior discovery

25

period has been consumed with motion practice and oppositions and the parties anticipate more

26
27
28

motion practice may be needed.
The parties and their counsel are spread all over the United States, hence more time is

10

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

needed to conduct discovery.
The amend/add deadline is the nearest discovery deadline and it is on May 28 2024.
The logistics and intervening Holidays and legal commitments make extending discovery
necessary.
During the discovery period the Plaintiff’s counsel has also been contending with
unexpected health issues.
Unavoidable unanticipated unexpected legal commitments that have overlapped during
discovery period have also made extending discovery necessary (inclusive of but not limited to
contending with the Defendants’ motions).

12

In general and generally, more time is required to complete/conduct discovery and assess

13

if experts are needed (and to procure and finance experts if any are needed), further the Plaintiffs

14

need more time to fund the rest of discovery.

15
16

An extension would also ease some scheduling congestion.

17

For all the above reasons and all the reasons set forth in this stipulation-and-order an extension is

18

needed, and remaining discovery has not yet been done.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

The above reasons and considerations constitute good cause for asking for extension and
the granting of the extension.
V.

LR 26-3(d) A PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR COMPLETING ALL
REMAINING DISCOVERY.

The Plaintiffs propose the following dates for the remaining discovery
Discovery Cut-off Date -

December 30, 2024

Date to file a motion to add parties
or motion to amend pleadings -

October 1, 2024

Expert disclosure –

October 31, 2024

11

1

Rebuttal expert –

December 2, 2024

2

Dispositive motions –

January 29, 2025

Pretrial Order –

February 28, 2025, however if a dispositive
motion is filed on or before this date then no
sooner than 30-days from the Court’s decision on
the dispositive motion.

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

VI.

FURTHER LAW AND ARGUMENT

The amount of time sought by this extension is four months (plus any days needed to
avoid a deadline falling on a weekend). This is a sixth request by motion (but only fifth after the

11

answers were filed) of the extension of the aforesaid deadlines. Fed. R. Civ. P 6, LR 26-3, LR IA

12

6-1, LR 26-1 and related local rules enables and permits this Court to grant an

13

extension/enlargement of a date (including the discovery dates) for good cause. See Fed. R. Civ.

14

P 6(b)(1) and LR 25-3; See also Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1258–60 (9th

15
16

Cir. 2010); See also Mosely v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court ex rel. County of Clark, 188 P.3d 1136

17

(Nev. 2008); Cal. Trout v. F.E.R.C., 572 F.3d 1003, 1027 n. 1 (9th Cir.2009); PerezDenison v.

18

Kaiser Found. Health Plan of the Nw., 868 F. Supp. 2d 1065 (D. Or. 2012); Venegas–Hernandez

19

v. Sonolux Records, 370 F.3d 183, 187 (1st Cir.2004); Thomas v. Brennan, 961 F.2d 612, 619

20

(7th Cir.1992); Lolatchy v. Arthur Murray, Inc., 816 F.2d 951, 954 (4th Cir.1987).

21
22

Fed. R. Civ. P 6(b), LR 26-3 and LR IA 6-1 (on their faces) employ and mention a “good

23

cause” standard for granting extension/alteration of time and deadlines. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)

24

and IA LR 6-1(d). Rule 6(b) also allows extension/alteration of times under “excusable neglect”

25

when a moving-party files a motions after a deadline has elapsed/expired. Id. However, in the

26
27
28

instant matter the Court need not reach (or apply) the “excusable neglect” standard because this
Motion is filed prior to date 21-day cut-off in the Local Rules.

12

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

The Court can grant this Motion and do so in shortened time under Fed. R. Civ. P.
6(b)(1)(A), LR 26-3 and LR IA 6-1(d) for good cause.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b) states in relevant part:
(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.
LR 26-3 states in relevant part:
A motion or stipulation to extend any date set by the discovery plan,
scheduling order, or other order must, in addition to satisfying the
requirements of LR IA 6-1, be supported by a showing of good cause
for the extension. A motion or stipulation to extend a deadline set
forth in a discovery plan must be received by the court no later than
21 days before the expiration of the subject deadline. A request
made within 21 days of the subject deadline must be supported by a
showing of good cause. A request made after the expiration of the
subject deadline will not be granted unless the movant also
demonstrates that the failure to act was the result of excusable
neglect. A motion or stipulation to extend a discovery deadline or to
reopen discovery must include:
As seen in Ahanchian, Mosely and other apposite cases “good cause” concerning the

20

standard can virtually be any reasonable, rational, practical or feasible reason provided by the

21

moving party, with little to no deference for factors used in applying the more stringent standard

22

of “excusable neglect” (i.e. good faith, reasons for not complying or delaying, and level of

23
24
25
26
27

prejudice etc.). See Ahanchian; See also Mosely. In the instant matter most there is good cause
and this Motion is made before the expiration of any deadline and made 21 days before the
nearest discovery deadline..
The Ahanchian Court held:

28

13

1

Critically, the record is devoid of any indication either that
Ahanchian's counsel acted in bad faith or that an extension of time
would prejudice defendants. To the contrary, the record reflects that
Ahanchian's counsel acted conscientiously throughout the litigation,
promptly seeking extensions of time when necessary and stipulating
to defendants' earlier request for an extension of time to file their
answer and to the twelve-week extension due to two defendants' late
appearances…..Had the district court had any doubts about the
veracity or good faith of Ahanchian's counsel, or been worried about
prospective prejudice, it could have held an evidentiary hearing or
sought more information; instead, without support in the record, it
summarily denied Ahanchian's request.”

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

6560/Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1258–60 (9th Cir. 2010)(emphasis
added).
In the instant matter, the Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel have not acted in bad faith in
bringing this Motion, but instead have acted in good faith (and reasonably) as Plaintiffs’ counsel

14

has always first sought a stipulation in emails, telephone calls and meet-and-confer and the

15

Defendants have said they will not oppose this Motion or the request for four month extension.

16

The Plaintiffs sought extensions from the defendants’ counsels of record (like the plaintiff’s

17

counsel in Ahanchian) before filing this Motion. See supra Odunze Decl.

18
19

If the Court deems it proper, reasonable, practical or just the Court can grant—with or

20

without motion or notice”—an extension or if the Court was not inclined to immediately grant an

21

approximately four-month grant it could hypothetically grant (sua sponte "with or without

22

motion or notice”) using the power under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b) a shorter extension, however an

23
24
25

approximately four-month extension or alternatively an extension of as close to approximately
four-months to complete discovery and extend all deadlines including cut-offs, amending/add

26

parties, experts, rebuttal expert, dispositive motion and all other discovery. The Plaintiffs’

27

Motion should be GRANTED in its entirety.

28

14

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Although it is only persuasive (state court) not binding precedential authority on federal
court, in Mosely Nevada’s Supreme Court expressed “cause shown” in some instances can be
interpreted as “good cause”, the Plaintiffs mention the Mosely Court’s decision here to illustrate
the breadth/range of the standard for “good cause” as seen by some nearby contemporary courts.
The above and below recited facts and circumstances are demonstrative of good cause.
Concerning Court rules, the United States Court of Appeals of the Ninth Circuit (“Ninth
Circuit”) held rules are ‘to be liberally construed to effectuate the general purpose of seeing that
cases are tried on the merits.’” Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1258–60 (9th

11

Cir. 2010) (citing Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 459 (9th Cir.1983) (quoting Staren v. American

12

Nat'l Bank & Trust Co. of Chicago, 529 F.2d 1257, 1263 (7th Cir.1976)).

13

In Ahanchian, the Ninth Circuit further held, “‘Good cause’ is a non-rigorous standard

14

that has been construed broadly across procedural and statutory contexts.” 624 F.3d 1253; See

15
16

also e.g., Venegas–Hernandez v. Sonolux Records, 370 F.3d 183, 187 (1st Cir.2004); Thomas v.

17

Brennan, 961 F.2d 612, 619 (7th Cir.1992); Lolatchy v. Arthur Murray, Inc., 816 F.2d 951, 954

18

(4th Cir.1987). Although the two cases concern two different court systems (one the federal

19

system and the other state system) Ahanchian and Mosely mirror, reflect and reinforcement each

20

others’ underlying sentiment, precedent and propositions concerning liberal grant of extensions

21
22

and liberal findings of good cause for granting extensions, additionally Scrimer v. Eighth

23

Judicial Dist. Court ex rel. County of Clark, 116 Nev. 507, 998 P.2d 1190 (Nev. , 2000) and

24

Domino v. Gaugha, 103 Nev. 582, 747 P.2d 236 (1937) are additional Nevada Supreme Court

25

decisions that mirror and reinforce the precedent and propositions of Ahanchian. In Scrimer the

26
27

calendaring and scheduling demands/constraints/difficulties of the plaintiff’s counsel where

28

15

1

sufficient good cause for granting extension (the Scrimer Court also discusses other variables

2

concerning counsel worth considering that constituted good cause for an extension)

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

More importantly the holding Ahanchian is illustrative, instructive and authoritative of
the how Courts in this Circuit gage and adjudge good cause and the variables and metrics utilized
and considered by Courts in this Circuit to determine good cause.
Even under the more stringent Fed. R. Civ. P 6(b)(1)(B) (which utilizes excusable neglect
as a measure and which the Court need not reach) the Plaintiff would still be entitled to an
approximately four-month extension or alternatively to as close to an approximately four-month
extension as possible.
Even excusable neglect’s more stringent standard (articulated in Fed. R. Civ. P

13

6(b)(1)(B))—which is triggered by a moving-party failing to file a motion for extension prior to

14

the expiration of an applicable deadline—still enables enlargements of time for a moving party

15
16

even when an applicable deadline has been missed, therefore even if that standard applied (which

17

it does not) the Plaintiff would still be entitled to the relief requested in this Motion. See Fed. R.

18

Civ. P 6(b); Mosely v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court ex rel. County of Clark, 188 P.3d 1136 (Nev.

19

2008); See MCI Telecomm.Corp. v. Teleconcepts, Inc., 71 F.3d 1086, 1097 (citing United States

20

v. Nuttall, 122 F.R.D. 163, 166-67 (D. Del. 1988). Specifically, Fed. R. Civ. P 6(b) states the

21
22

Court may enlarge the period “on motion made after the time has expired if the party failed to act

23

because of excusable neglect”. Some general factors considered by courts when deciding an

24

enlargement under the more stringent excusable neglect standard (though the Plaintiff has not

25

been neglectful in this matter) include (1) good faith by the party seeking enlargement, (2) a

26
27
28

reasonable basis for not complying within the specified time period, (3) the level of prejudice to
the nonmoving party. See MCI Telecomm.Corp. v. Teleconcepts, Inc., 71 F.3d 1086, 1097 (citing

16

1

United States v. Nuttall, 122 F.R.D. 163, 166-67 (D. Del. 1988): See also Oyama v. Sheehan

2

F.3d 253 507(2001); See also Mosely v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court ex rel. County of Clark, 188

3
4
5

P.3d 1136 (Nev. 2008); See Ohlinger v. U.S., 135 F. Supp. 40 (D. Idaho 1955).
Considering the extension is sought is approximately four-months or alternatively an as

6

close to an approximately four-month extension as possible (or some close shorter period), that

7

Plaintiffs’ counsel asked the defendants’ counsel for extension before filing this Motion (and the

8

Defendant said they would not oppose it 1), that the Plaintiffs’ counsel has acted as

9
10

“conscientiously” with respect to seeking extensions-and-grating extensions as the plaintiff’s

11

counsel in Ahanchian (granting the defendants’ counsel’s requests to extend their time to

12

answer/respond to the SAC, granting the defendants’ counsel’s request to move/continue

13

discovery dates [including 26(f) conference, initial disclosure dates and dates for completing

14

scheduling orders]) there’s good faith and good reasons articulated for extension etc.

15
16

Respectfully the relief requested in this Motion can be, and should be fully granted under

17

Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A) and/or LR 26-3 for good cause, nonetheless considering the facts

18

(including but not limited to those in the Odunze Decl.) had the deadlines passed it could have

19

also been granted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B), such deadlines have not passed before the

20

filing of this Motion so the relief requested in this Motion should be granted and is properly

21
22

granted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A) and LR 26-3.

23
24
25
26
27
28

In an email correspondence the Defendant attorneys advised “that as a matter of professional courtesy
the Defendants do not oppose the Plaintiffs’ requested four-month extension.” The Defendant Attorneys
further stated in email correspondence “that since the” lead Plaintiffs’ attorney’s “medical issues have
continued and worsened, and it is unknown if and when those medical conditions will allow” the
Plaintiffs’ lead attorney “to be able to undertake what” what the Defendants’ counsel believes “is needed
to conduct and move…forward, unless and until” the Plaintiffs’ lead counsel “associates additional
counsel that can” assist with the “case going forward, the Defendants will oppose” extensions that
proceed the grant of the extension that was requested by the Motion at bar.
1

17

1

LR IA 6-1(d) states:

2

Motions to shorten time will be granted only upon an attorney or
party’s declaration describing the circumstances claimed to
constitute good cause to justify shortening of time. The moving
party must advise the courtroom administrator for the assigned
judge that a motion for an order shortening time was filed.’

3
4
5
6

The facts, circumstances, variables and needs discussed in the Odunze Decl. and the

7

facts, circumstances, variables and needs discussed in this Motion show that the Motion should

8

be GRANTED under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A), LR 26-3 and a four-month extension or

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

alternatively as close to a four-month extension should be granted. The Odunze Decl. and the
above provide good cause and good reasons to GRANT this instant motion.
Finally, the Defendants do not oppose this motion or an approximately four month
extension.
This Motion and the relief requested and contemplated by it should be granted under Fed.
R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A), LR 26-3 and any other applicable rule that is favorable to the Plaintiffs.
This motion is not filed for the purpose of delay.

18
19
20
21
22

VII.

CONCLUSION

Respectfully, based on the foregoing the motion should be GRANTED. Respectfully, this
Moton is first-and-foremost and overarchingly a request for the extension for all discovery
deadlines to be extended by approximately four-months or alternatively to as close as

23

approximately four-months as possible, that is the central/primary relief that is foremost

24

requested herein and should be GRANTED. The Motion should be GRANTED in its entirety.

25

The discovery dates should be extended by approximately four-months with adjustments for

26
27
28

holiday (holiday weeks) or as close to approximately four-months as possible and the Plaintiffs’
proposed new dates should be adopted.

18

1

The Court should grant any other relief that is favorable to the Plaintiff the Court feels is

2

necessary, proper, practical or just (arising in chamber, any hearing, review, pleadings, record o

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

evidence) adduced in or by the Court’s consideration and review of the instant Motion).
DATED this 7th day of May 2024

ODUNZE PLLC
__/s/Ikenna Odunze_______________
Ikenna Odunze, Esq.
ODUNZE & SWANIGAN
ODUNZE PLLC
3651 Lindell Road Suite D #142
Las Vegas Nevada 89103
Telephone No. 702-943-0305
Facsimile No. 702-943-023
IT SO ORDERED

13

_________________________________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14

May 8, 2024
DATED:_________________________

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

19

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b) and Section IV of District of Nevada Electronic Filing
Procedures, I certify that I am an employee of ODUNZE PLLC, and that on May 7th, 2024, the
above Motion (with declaration) were served on all parties registered for electronic service in
CASE NO.: 2:22-cv-00274-ART-BNW.
__/s/ Ikenna Odunze, Esq.____________
An employee of ODUNZE PLLC

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

20