Sargant vs HG Staffing, LLC

Filing 281

ORDER granting ECF No. 280 Unopposed Motion to Exceed Page Limit for Defendants' Replies in Support of Motions for Summary Judgment (ECF Nos. 253 , 254 , 255 , 256 , 257 , 258 ) and Extending the Deadline for Filing the Replies to 6/14/2018. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 6/11/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LH)

Case 3:13-cv-00453-LRH-WGC Document 280 Filed 06/11/18 Page 1 of 7

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

11

CHRIS DAVIS, ESQ.
NV Bar No. 06616
[e-mail]
2535 Las Vegas Boulevard South
Las Vegas, Nevada 89109
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 702-761-3400
Attorneys for Defendants

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

COHEN|JOHNSON|PARKER|EDWARDS

10

COHEN|JOHNSON|PARKER|EDWARDS
H. STAN JOHNSON, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 00265
[e-mail]
375 East Warm Springs Road, Suite 100
Las Vegas, Nevada 89119
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

14
Case No. 3:13-cv-00453-LRH-WGC

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

TIFFANY SARGENT, BAILEY
CRYDERMAN, SAMANTHA L. IGNACIO
(formerly SCHNEIDER), VINCENT M.
IGNACIO, HUONG (“ROSIE”) BOGGS, and
JACQULYN WIEDERHOLT ,
Plaintiffs,
v.
HG STAFFING, LLC, MEI-GSR
HOLDINGS, LLC d/b/a GRAND SIERRA
RESORT, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,

UNOPPOSED MOTION TO EXCEED
PAGE LIMIT FOR DEFENDANTS’
REPLIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND
EXTEND THE DEADLINE FOR FILING
THE REPLIES
AND
PROPOSED ORDER

Defendants.

23
24
25
26
27
28
Page 1 of 7

Case 3:13-cv-00453-LRH-WGC Document 280 Filed 06/11/18 Page 2 of 7

1

Defendants HG STAFFING LLC, and MEI-GSR HOLDINGS, LLC d/b/a GRAND

2

SIERRA RESORT, by and through their counsel of record, hereby moves, pursuant to LR 7-2

3

and 7-3, to exceed the page limit on six of Defendants’ Replies in Support of Defendants’

4

Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendants also hereby move to extend the pursuant

5

to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b) and LR 7-2, LR IA 6-1 and 6-2, for an extension of time to file their

6

replies. This motion is based on the following Points and Authorities, the Declaration of Chris

7

Davis Esq., and the pleadings and papers filed in this matter.

8
9

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

COHEN|JOHNSON|PARKER|EDWARDS

10

13
14

Dated this 11th day of June, 2018.
COHEN|JOHNSON|PARKER|EDWARDS
/s/ H. Stan Johnson, Esq.
H. STAN JOHNSON, NV Bar No. 00265
CHRIS DAVIS, NV Bar No. 06616
375 E. Warm Springs Rd., Suite 104
Las Vegas, NV 89119
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

15

CHRIS DAVIS, ESQ.

16

/s/ Chris Davis, Esq.
NV Bar No. 06616
[e-mail]
2535 Las Vegas Boulevard South
Las Vegas, Nevada 89109
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 702-761-3400

17
18
19
20
21

DECLARATION OF CHRIS DAVIS, ESQ.

22

I, Chris Davis, declare under penalty of perjury that the following is true and correct of

23
24
25

my own personal knowledge and if called to testify in this matter would testify as follows:
1. I am attorney representing the Defendants HG Staffing, LLC, and MEI-GSR Holdings,
LLC d/b/a Grand Sierra Resort, in the above entitled matter.

26

2. On June 11, 2018, by phone, I contacted counsel for Plaintiffs, Leah Jones, to request

27

that Defendants stipulate to exceed the page limit on Plaintiffs’ Replies in Support of

28

Defendant’s Renewed Motions for Summary Judgment, and to shortly extend the time to file
Page 2 of 7

Case 3:13-cv-00453-LRH-WGC Document 280 Filed 06/11/18 Page 3 of 7

1

replies. While Counsel for Plaintiff would not agree to stipulate to my request, she graciously

2

agreed not to oppose my motion seeking such relief.

3

3. While Defendants were able to file their renewed motions within the page limits set by

4

the local rules, due to the complex fact intensive nature of the case, the parties stipulated to

5

permit Plaintiffs to exceed the page limit on their opposition to Defendant’s Renewed Motions

6

for Summary Judgment, which the Court granted.

arguments of three (3) replies into one (1) brief. Many of the argument in this reply originated in

9

the reply in support of Defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment, filed on September 21.

10

2015. That reply was 22 pages long. While the Court granted the motion finding that NRS

11

Chapter 608 did not provide a private right of action, the Court declined to consider the other

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

4. The over-length briefs are required because Defendants were required to put the

8

COHEN|JOHNSON|PARKER|EDWARDS

7

grounds set forth the motion for summary judgment and the reply. When the Plaintiffs moved

13

for reconsideration of that decision based on the Nevada Supreme Court’s holding in Neville,

14

Defendants requested that the Court also consider the other grounds set forth in the motion, but

15

the Court declined to do so, instead indicating that the arguments should be briefed in a new

16

motion.

17

5. The arguments in this Reply also stem from Defendants’ replies, filed on September

18

25, 2017, in support of six (6) separate motions for summary judgment filed on September 25,

19

2017. Those six (6) replies ranged up to 32 pages in length. The Court granted Defendants’

20

motion to exceed the page limit because the Court recognized that issues in the six (6) replies

21

were complex and fact intensive involving minimum wage claims, overtime claims under the

22

FLSA, and a fact intensive Age Discrimination Employment Act (29 U.S.C. § 261) claims.

23

6. When granting Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration reinstating Plaintiffs’ state law

24

wage claims, however, this Court sua sponte denied Defendant’s pending six (6) motions for

25

summary judgment, without prejudice, with the apparent goal of resolving all issues in one

26

motion, even though the arguments in the motions, with their replies, could have been addressed

27

independently.

28
Page 3 of 7

Case 3:13-cv-00453-LRH-WGC Document 280 Filed 06/11/18 Page 4 of 7

1

7. In addition to the arguments in these two replies, the current replies in support of

2

Defendant’s renewed motions for summary judgment must also address the state law claims for

3

all hours worked and overtime under NRS 608.016 and 608.018. These claims raise two-years

4

of facts regarding each hour worked by six (6) separate employees. These the renewed replies

5

must also cover the novel issue of exhaustion of administrative remedies which has yet to be

6

addressed by a court.

renewed motion that were not raised in opposition to the previous motions. For example,

9

Plaintiffs opposition rely upon the Declaration of James Toney, who Plaintiffs seek to use as an

10

expert. Many of the arguments Mr. Toney raises, however, were not presented in Plaintiffs’

11

previous oppositions. Defendants were required to respond to all of these new arguments which

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

8. Additionally, Plaintiffs have raise numerous arguments in opposition to Defendants’

8

COHEN|JOHNSON|PARKER|EDWARDS

7

required additional pages.

13

9. Considering the breadth and complexity of the issues now faced by Defendants, the

14

page length of the replies range from 22 pages to 44 pages in length. Only two of the replies are

15

over 40 pages because those replies involved “fact intensive Age Discrimination Employment

16

Act (29 U.S.C. § 261) claims” as noted in the parties’ stipulation to extend the page length for

17

Plaintiffs’ oppositions.

18

10. The same good cause is present for extending the page limit on Defendants’ replies,

19

which was present with other filings where the court extended the page limit. The parties have

20

engaged in extended discovery, thus creating a detailed factual record. This case involves

21

complex issues involving both State and Federal wage claims and State and Federal age

22

discrimination claims. Additionally, the issues in this reply are far more numerous and complex

23

that in previous filing

24

11. While these replies have been drafted, due to the over-length nature of the brief, each

25

brief must include a table of contents and a table of authorities. While I have vigorously

26

attempted to timely complete these replies by working nights and weekends, because there are

27

six (6) separate replies, I will be unable to complete the table of authorities prior to the deadline.

28
Page 4 of 7

Case 3:13-cv-00453-LRH-WGC Document 280 Filed 06/11/18 Page 5 of 7

1

12.

Accordingly, good cause is present for extending the page limit on Defendants’

2

six (6) replies in support of their renewed motion for summary judgment and in extending the

3

time to file those six (6) replies.

4

Dated this 11th day of June, 2018.

5

CHRIS DAVIS, ESQ.

6

/s/ Chris Davis
NV Bar No. 06616
[e-mail]
2535 Las Vegas Boulevard South
Las Vegas, Nevada 89109
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 702-761-3400

7
8
9

Attorney for Defendants

11
12

POINTS AND AUTHORITY
375 E. Warm Springs Road, Ste. 104
Las Vegas, Nevada 89119
[phone] FAX: [phone]

COHEN|JOHNSON|PARKER|EDWARDS

10

13
Pursuant to Local Rule 7-4, the Court may extend the page limit of a response to a motion
14
for good cause. Good cause is present because the surrounding wage and discrimination issues
15
16

raised in Plaintiff’s’ oppositions required a detailed factual response as well as extensive briefing
on the law. Each of these (6) replies in support of the Defendant’s renewed motions for

17
summary judgment involve arguments raised in two (2) separate motions which this Court
18
already recognized involved complex and fact intensive issue and therefore allowed the parties to
19
file over-length briefs when previously briefing those matters.
20
The Court has also recognized that the renewed motions for summary judgment involve
21
numerous additional complex issues when it granted the parties’ stipulation to permit the
22

Plaintiffs to file over-length briefs when opposing Defendants’ Renewed Motion for Summary

23
Judgment. Despite the additional issues, the each of the six (6) replies in support of Defendants’
24
renewed motion is far shorter than the pages used to brief the combined replies in the previous
25
two (2) motions.
26
While the six (6) replies have been drafted, due to the over-length nature of the brief,
27
each brief must include a table of contents and a table of authorities. Counsel has vigorously
28
Page 5 of 7

Case 3:13-cv-00453-LRH-WGC Document 280 Filed 06/11/18 Page 6 of 7

1

attempted to timely complete these replies by working nights and weekends, however counsel

2

will be unable to complete the table of authorities prior to the deadline for the six (6) separate

3

replies. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b), the “court may, for good cause, extend the time . . . with

4

or without motion or notice . . .. if a request is made, before the original time or its extension

5

expires.” Good cause is present due to the sheer volume of work that was require to draft the six

6

(6) replies and condense the arguments into a manageable length. At most, Defendants will

7

require three (3) additional days to finalize the briefing of these six (6) replies.

8
9

11

the motion. See LR 7-2. Accordingly, Defendants respectfully request that the court enter the
following order:
1. Defendants’ unopposed motion to exceed the page limit for their six (6) Replies in

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

COHEN|JOHNSON|PARKER|EDWARDS

10

As Plaintiffs have agreed not to oppose this motion, the have consented to granting of

Support of Defendants’ Renewed Motion for Summary Judgments against Plaintiff

13

Boggs, Plaintiff Wiederholt and Plaintiff Samantha Ignacio be GRANTED.

14

2. Defendants unopposed motion to extend the time to file their six (6) Replies in Support of

15

Defendants’ Renewed Motion for Summary Judgments by three (3) days be GRANTED,

16

and that the six (6) replies shall be due on Thursday, June 14, 2018.

17

Dated this 11th day of September 2018,

18

COHEN|JOHNSON|PARKER|EDWARDS

19

/s/ H. Stan Johnson, Esq.
H. STAN JOHNSON, NV Bar No. 00265
375 E. Warm Springs Rd., Suite 104
Las Vegas, NV 89119
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendants

20
21
22
23

ORDER

24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26

DATED this 11th day of June, 2018.
DATED this
day of

27
28

, 2018.

___________________________________
LARRY R. HICKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
UNITED STATES JUDGE
Page 6 of 7