Sargant vs HG Staffing, LLC

Filing 279

ORDER granting ECF No. 278 Stipulation : Replies in Support of ECF Nos. 253 , 254 , 255 , 256 , 257 and 258 Motions for Summary Judgment due by 6/11/2018. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 5/31/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

Case 3:13-cv-00453-LRH-WGC Document 278 Filed 05/30/18 Page 1 of 2

1
2
3
4
5
6

COHEN|JOHNSON|PARKER|EDWARDS
H. STAN JOHNSON, ESQ.
Nevada bar No. 00265
[e-mail]
375 East Warm Springs Road, Suite 104
Las Vegas, Nevada 89119
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendants
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8
9

11
12
375 E. Warm Springs Road, Ste. 104
Las Vegas, Nevada 89119
[phone] FAX: [phone]

COHEN|JOHNSON|PARKER|EDWARDS

10

TIFFANY SARGENT, BAILEY
CRYDERMAN, SAMANTHA L. IGNACIO
(formerly SCHNEIDER), VINCENT M.
IGNACIO, HUONG (“ROSIE”) BOGGS, and
JACQULYN WIEDERHOLT,

13

Plaintiffs,

14

V.

15

HG STAFFING, LLC, MEI-GSR
HOLDINGS, LLC d/b/a GRAND SIERRA
RESORT, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,

16
17

Case No. 3:13-cv-00453-LRH-WGC

STIPULATION AND ORDER
EXTENDING THE TIME TO FILE
REPLIES IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
(Third Request)

Defendants.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiffs, TIFFANY SARGENT, BAILEY CRYDERMAN, VINCENT M. IGNACIO,
SAMANTHA L. IGNACIO (formerly SCHNEIDER), HUONG (“ROSIE”) BOGGS, and
JACQULYN WIEDERHOLT (“Plaintiffs) and Defendants HG STAFFING, LLC, and MEIGSR HOLDINGS, LLC d/b/a GRAND SIERRA RESORT (“Defendants” or “GSR”), by and
through their respective counsel of record, agree to extend the time for Defendants to file their
replies in support of Defendants’ six (6) dispositive motions by one (1) month. The parties
previously extended the briefing schedule to avoid further litigation expense while the parties
entered into settlement negotiations. Although the parties entered in settlement negotiations in
good faith, the parties were unable to reach a settlement and insufficient time remains to brief six
(6) replies in support of Defendants’ motion for summary judgment that need to be filed because
Page 1 of 2

Case 3:13-cv-00453-LRH-WGC Document 278 Filed 05/30/18 Page 2 of 2

1

Plaintiffs’ oppositions to Defendants’ motions for summary judgment involve newly reinstated

2

state law wage claims which are of a complex and fact intensive nature. This request is also

3

necessary because the principal attorney briefing the matter on behalf of Defendants has secured

4

other employment. While he has agreed to assist in the briefing these replies, additional time to

5

brief the six (6) replies is necessary due to the additional duties of his new employment.

6

Accordingly, based on the foregoing and for good cause appearing, the parties, by and

7

through their respective counsel of record, do hereby stipulate and agree that the time for

8

Defendants to file their six (6) replies in support of Defendants’ renewed motions for summary

9

judgment, is extended by (1) week is now due on Monday, June 11, 2018.

11
12
375 E. Warm Springs Road, Ste. 104
Las Vegas, Nevada 89119
[phone] FAX: [phone]

COHEN|JOHNSON|PARKER|EDWARDS

10

13
14
15
16

Dated this 30th day of May 2018.
COHEN|JOHNSON|PARKER|EDWARDS

THIERMAN BUCK, LLP

By: /s/ H. Stan Johnson
H. Stan Johnson, Esq.
Nevada Bar No. 00265
375 E Warm Springs Rd., Suite 104
Las Vegas, Nevada 89119
Attorneys for Defendants

_

By: /s/ Leah L. Jones, Esq.
Leah L. Jones, Esq.
Nevada Bar No. 13161
7287 Lakeside Drive
Reno, Nevada 89511
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

17
18
ORDER

19
20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 31st day of May, 2018.
day of

22
23
24

JUDGE

, 2018.
________________________________
LARRY R. HICKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

25
26
27
28
Page 2 of 2

_