Opinion
2:21-cv-02113-GMN-DJA
04-01-2022
WEBB HILL, an individual, Plaintiff, v. WYNN LAS VEGAS, LLC d/b/a Encore Las Vegas, a Domestic Corporation, Defendant,
JOSHUA A. SLIKER, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 12493 HOLLY E. WALKER, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 14295 JACKSON LEWIS P.C. Attorneys for Defendant Wynn Las Vegas, LLC
JOSHUA A. SLIKER, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 12493
HOLLY E. WALKER, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 14295
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
Attorneys for Defendant
Wynn Las Vegas, LLC
DEFENDANT WYNN LAS VEGAS, LLC'S MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (ECF NO. 16)
DANIEL J. ALREEGTS, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Defendant Wynn Las Vegas, LLC d/b/a Encore Las Vegas (“Defendant”), by and through its attorneys, Jackson Lewis P.C., hereby submits the instant Motion for an Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiff Webb Hill's First Amended Complaint, to April 15, 2022. This Motion is based on the following Memorandum of Points and Authorities, all pleadings and documents on file with the Court, and any oral argument that the Court deems proper.
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
I. BACKGROUND
This is an employment termination case in which Plaintiff alleges discrimination and retaliation claims pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, 29 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq., and state law. Plaintiff filed his Complaint on November 29, 2021. ECF No. 1. On January 26, 2022, the parties stipulated to allow Plaintiff to file a First Amended Complaint which dismissed Wynn Resorts, Limited, as a party, and named Wynn Las Vegas, LLC as a defendant. ECF No. 13. The Court granted the stipulation on January 28, 2022. ECF No. 15. Defendant's Counsel accepted service of the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on behalf of Defendant on February 1, 2022. Defendant's response to the FAC is currently due on April 1, 2022.
On March 9, 2022, Plaintiff's former counsel, Jenny Foley, filed a motion to withdraw as counsel. ECF No. 24. The Court granted Ms. Foley's motion on March 29, 2022. ECF No. 25. Accordingly, Plaintiff is currently proceeding pro se and must notify the Court as to whether he intends to proceed pro se or retain counsel by April 19, 2022. Id.
II. LEGAL ARGUMENT
FRCP 6(b)(1) provides that when an act must be done within a specified time, the Court “may, for good cause, extend the time . . . with or without motion or notice if the court acts, or if a request is made, before the original time or its extension expires . . . .” “Good cause” is not a rigorous or high standard, and courts have construed the test broadly. Ahanchion v. Kenan Pictures, 624 F.3d 1253 (9th Cir. 2010). Rule 6(b) “[is] to be liberally construed to effectuate the general purpose of seeing that cases are tried on the merits.” Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 459 (9th Cir. 1983); Wong v. Regents of the Univ. of Calif., 410 F.3d 1052, 1060 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Of course, courts should not mindlessly enforce deadlines.”). Indeed, the “good cause” standard “primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” In re W. States Wholesale Nat. Gas Antitrust Litig., 715 F.3d 716, 737 (9th Cir. 2013).
Here, good cause exists to extend the deadline for Defendant to respond to the FAC because Defendant requires additional time to review and finalize its response to the FAC. Specifically, Defendant's Counsel is travelling from March 29, 2022 to April 3, 2022 for the purpose of handling depositions in another case, and the client representative for Defendant is currently out of the office and will not return until approximately April 6, 2022. Accordingly, Defendant will need sufficient time to review and finalize its response to the FAC. Further, Defendant brings the instant motion before the deadline to respond has expired and thus within the requirements of FRCP 6(b)(1). See Ahanchian, 624 F.3d at 1259 (requests for extensions of time made before the applicable deadline has passed should generally be granted in the absence of bad faith or prejudice to adverse party). Because Plaintiffs former counsel withdrew from this case and Plaintiff is currently proceeding pro se, Defendant was unable to secure a stipulation for an extension of time and instead files this motion out of an abundance of caution.
Accordingly, good cause exists to grant Defendant's Motion and allow Defendant up to and including April 15, 2022 to respond to Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint. See Doyle v. Gittere, No. 3:00-cv-00101-RCJ-WGC, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 224478, at *2 (D. Nev. Dec. 1, 2020) (finding good cause for extending time for defendant to respond to motion where defendant's counsel had obligations in other cases); Mchaud v. Baker, 3:17-cv-00718-MMD-CBC, 2019 WL 1292679, *1 (D. Nev. March 20, 2019) (citing Canup v. Miss. Valley Barge Line Co., 31 F.R.D. 282, 283 (D. Pa. 1962) (explaining that the “practicalities of life” (such as an attorney's “conflicting professional engagements” or personal commitments such as vacations, family activities, illnesses, or death) often necessitate an enlargement of time to comply with a court deadline)).
For good cause appearing therein, IT IS SO ORDERED.