Weiman v. 4283929 Delaware, LLC ( 2022 )

1 JOSHUA A. SLIKER, ESQ Nevada Bar No. 12493 2 KYLE J. HOYT, ESQ Nevada Bar No. 14886 3 JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 4 300 S. Fourth Street, Suite 900 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 5 Telephone: (702) 921-2460 Email: joshua.sliker@jacksonlewis.com 6 Attorneys for Defendant 7 4283929 Delaware, LLC 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 10 CURT WEIMAN, Case No.: 2:22-cv-01707-MMD-NJK 11 Plaintiff, STIPULATION AND ORDER TO 12 vs. EXTEND TIME FOR DEFENDANT 4283929 DELAWARE, LLC TO FILE A 13 4283929 DELAWARE, LLC; GATEWAY US REPLY BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO HOLDINGS, INC.; GATEWAY SERVICES, PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO 14 INC.; DOES I through V; and DOE MOTION TO COMPEL CORPORATIONS I through V, ARBITRATION; MOTION TO 15 DISMISS OR STAY THE CASE; AND Defendants. MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY 16 17 (Second Request) 18 19 Defendant 4283929 Delaware, LLC, by and through its attorneys, Jackson Lewis P.C., and 20 Plaintiff Curt Weiman, by and through his counsel, Richard Segerblom, Esq., hereby stipulate and 21 agree to an extension of time for Defendant to file a Reply to Plaintiff’s Opposition to Motion to 22 Compel Arbitration; Motion to Dismiss or Stay the Case, and Motion to Stay Discovery, which was 23 due on December 6, 2022, up to and including December 13, 2022. 24 This is the second request for an extension of time to respond to Plaintiff’s Opposition. On 25 December 6, 2022, the parties submitted a stipulation seeking the same period of extension. (ECF 26 19). On December 7, 2022, the request was denied without prejudice for failing to state the reasons 27 for the extension requested. (ECF 20). 1 significant witness preparation efforts and defending depositions in an unrelated arbitration 2 proceeding involving 12 parties. The depositions were challenged in that proceeding and not certain 3 to proceed until the arbitrator issued an order on December 5th which scheduled depositions to take 4 place on December 6th and 9th. These events required counsel to immediately devote full attention 5 to the depositions. Further, undersigned counsel has been caring for an immediate family member 6 experiencing illness. 7 Pursuant to LR IA 6-1(a), Defendant’s Counsel respectfully submits that the filing of this 8 stipulation following the December 6, 2022 deadline is the result of excusable neglect. Excusable 9 neglect exists where a party’s failure to comply with a deadline was negligent. See Lemoge v. United 10 States, 587 F.3d 1188, 1195 (9th Cir.2009). There are at least four factors in determining whether 11 neglect is excusable: (1) the danger of prejudice to the opposing party; (2) the length of the delay 12 and its potential impact on the proceedings; (3) the reason for the delay; and (4) whether the movant 13 acted in good faith. See Bateman v. U.S. Postal Serv., 231 F.3d 1220, 1223-24 (9th Cir. 2000). The 14 determination of whether neglect is excusable is ultimately an equitable one, taking account of all 15 relevant circumstances surrounding the party’s omission. See Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick 16 Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380, 395, 113 S. Ct. 1489, 123 L. Ed. 2d 74 (1993). This equitable 17 determination is left to the discretion of the district court. See Pincay v. Andrews, 389 F.3d 853, 18 860 (9th Cir. 2004). 19 Here, the filing of the second stipulation on December 7, 2022 meets the standard. There is 20 no prejudice to Plaintiff, who has already filed his Opposition to the Motions, and has consented to 21 the proposed extension. The length of delay is very short and will have minimal impact on the 22 proceedings. Additionally, Defendants diligently sought the agreement of Plaintiff within the time 23 provided to submit a response. Following the Court’s Order denying the prior stipulation without 24 prejudice, Defendants’ Counsel immediately prepared this stipulation to address the issue. Further, 25 Defendants have not sought to delay these proceedings and only seek an extension in good faith so 26 that they can respond to the arguments and authority raised in Plaintiff’s briefing and reach a 27 determination on the merits. 1 This Stipulation is brought in good faith and not for the purpose of delay. 2 DATED this 7th day of December, 2022. 3 || JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 4 || Kyle J. Hoyt /s/ Richard Segerblom JOSHUA A. SLIKER, ESQ. RICHARD SEGERBLOM, ESQ. 5 || Nevada Bar No. 12493 Nevada Bar No. 1010 6 || KYLEJ. HOYT, ESQ. 602 South Tenth Street Nevada Bar No. 14886 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 7 300 S. Fourth Street, Ste. 900 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 Attorney for Plaintiff Curt Weiman Attorneys for Defendant 4283929 Delaware, LLC 10 ORDER IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 Dated: December 8 , 2022. 13 JIS BE 14 United Sta gistrate Judge 15 16 17 || 4880-7439-5714, v. 1 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28