Opinion
2:21-cv-01802-CDS-BNW
11-01-2022
MICHAEL FALLINE on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated. Plaintiff, v. CORECIVIC OF TENNESSEE, LLC; and DOES 1-50, Defendant. ANTHONY TURNER on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated. Plaintiff, v. CORECIVIC OF TENNESSEE, LLC; and DOES 1-50, Defendant.
THIERMAN BUCK, LLP, Mark R. Thierman, Nev. Bar No. 8285, Joshua D. Buck, Nev. Bar No. 12187, Leah L. Jones, Nev. Bar No. 13161, Joshua R. Hendrickson, Nev. Bar 12225. HODGES & FOTY, LLP, Don J. Foty Admitted Pro Hac Vice. THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC, Anthony J. Lazzaro, Admitted Pro Hac Vice. NILGES DRAHER LLC, Hans A. Nilges (Admitted Pro Hac Vice), Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Class. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C., Roger L. Grandgenett II, Nev. Bar No. 6323, Emil Kim, Nev. Bar No. 14894, Christian A. Angotti, admitted pro hac vice, Sean P. Dawson, admitted pro hac vice, Robert W. Pritchard, admitted pro hac vice, Attorneys for Defendant.
THIERMAN BUCK, LLP, Mark R. Thierman, Nev. Bar No. 8285, Joshua D. Buck, Nev. Bar No. 12187, Leah L. Jones, Nev. Bar No. 13161, Joshua R. Hendrickson, Nev. Bar 12225.
HODGES & FOTY, LLP, Don J. Foty Admitted Pro Hac Vice.
THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC, Anthony J. Lazzaro, Admitted Pro Hac Vice.
NILGES DRAHER LLC, Hans A. Nilges (Admitted Pro Hac Vice), Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Class.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C., Roger L. Grandgenett II, Nev. Bar No. 6323, Emil Kim, Nev. Bar No. 14894, Christian A. Angotti, admitted pro hac vice, Sean P. Dawson, admitted pro hac vice, Robert W. Pritchard, admitted pro hac vice, Attorneys for Defendant.
STIPULATION TO EXTEND STAY PENDING FURTHER SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS AND ORDER THEREON
The Parties in this case, Plaintiff MICHAEL FALLINE (“Plaintiff Falline”) by and through his counsel of record, HODGES & FOTY LLP, THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC, and NEGES DRAHER LLC, along with Plaintiff ANTHONY TURNER (“Plaintiff Turner”) by and through his counsel of record, THERMAN BUCK, LLP, and Defendant CORECIVIC OF TENNESSEE, LLC (“CoreCivic”), by and through their counsel of record, LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C., hereby request and stipulate an extension of the Stay in these related cases ordered in Case No. 2:22-cv-00775 (“Tinner Case”) at ECF No. 30, pending further early settlement discussions (“Stay”).
On July 21, 2022, Plaintiff Michael Falline and Plaintiff Anthony Tinner filed and the Court granted an Unopposed Motion to Consolidate and Transfer their two similar actions against Defendant CoreCivic of Tennessee, LLC (“CoreCivic”). See Case No. 2:21-cv-01802 (“Falline Case”) ECF No. 32-33, and Case No. 2:22-cv-00775 (“Tinner Case”) ECF No. 23; 27. Accordingly, the Court designated Plaintiff Falline's case as the lead case for purposes of the consolidation. See Falline Case ECF No. 33. The Court also ordered that “all future filings in these cases shall be filed in the lead case.” Id.
The purpose of the Stay is to promote judicial economy and allow this court to more effectively control the disposition of the cases on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and the litigants. See Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936) (“[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.”); Pate v. DePay Orthopedics, Inc., 2012 WL 3532780, at * 2 (D. Nev. Aug. 14, 2012) (“A trial court may, with propriety, find it is efficient for its own docket and the fairest course for the parties to enter a stay of an action before it, pending resolution of independent proceedings which bear upon the case.”), citing Leyva v. Certified Grocers of Cal., Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 863 (9th Cir. 1979).
The Parties participated in mediation on October 11, 2022, with Mediator Carole Katz in an attempt to resolve all claims in this action. At the conclusion of the mediation session on October 11, 2022, the parties agreed to keep the mediation open and continue engaging in meaningful dialogue and to continue to explore the possibility of early resolution through negotiation communications. Therefore, and in light of the parties' efforts to continue negotiations up through the holiday season, the Parties request an additional seventy-five (75) calendar days to continue settlement negotiations (“Stay period”). Accordingly, upon the expiration of the extended Stay period:
1) Should the Parties reach a settlement, the parties shall file their motion for approval of the settlement by no later than the date of expiration of the stay.
2) Should the Parties be unsuccessful at resolving all claims, the Parties shall set forth an updated proposed discovery plan and scheduling order.
This Stipulation is made in good faith and not for the purposes of undue burden or delay.
IT IS SO STIPULATED:
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties' Stipulation and Order to extend the Stay for seventy-five (75) calendar days in the above captioned matter is granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties will submit a Joint Status Report no later than seventy-five (75) calendar days from the entry of this Order to inform the com! if the parties have come to an early resolution.
1) Should the parties reach a settlement, the parties shall file their motion for approval of the settlement by no later than the date of expiration of the stay.
2) Should the parties be unsuccessful at resolving all claims, the parties shall set forth an updated proposed discovery plan and scheduling order.
IT IS SO ORDERED: