Opinion
2:19-cv-00373-APG-EJY
11-01-2022
SANDRA M. MEZA-PEREZ an Individual, Plaintiff, v. SBARRO LLC dba SBARRO PIZZA, a foreign limited liability company, SBARRO INC., dba SBARRO PIZZA a foreign corporation, ZACHARY CEBALLES, an individual, EFRAIN HERNANDEZ, an individual, JESUS ALATORRE, an individual, Defendants.
JENNY L. FOLEY, Ph.D., ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 9017 HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP Attorneys for Plaintiff
JENNY L. FOLEY, Ph.D., ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 9017
HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP
Attorneys for Plaintiff
MOTION TO EXTEND TIME FOR PLAINTIFF TO FILE REPLY BRIEFS IN SUPPORT OF HER POST-TRIAL MOTIONS [ECF NOS. 434 - 440]
ANDREW P. GORDON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Plaintiff, Sandra M. Meza-Perez, by and through her counsel of record Jenny Foley, Ph.D., Esq. of HKM Employment Attorneys LLP, hereby Requests an Extension to File Reply Briefs in Support of Plaintiff's Post-Trial Motions.
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On October 4, 2022, Plaintiff filed the following post-trial motions: 1) Renewal of Her Motions for Reconsideration and Clarification of This Court's Prior Order on Summary Judgment Dismissing Her Claims for Negligent Hiring, Negligent Supervision and Negligent Retention [ECF No. 434]; 2) Motion for New Trial Pursuant to FRCP 59(A) [ECF No. 435]; 3) Rule 50(b) Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law [ECF No. 436]; 4) Motion for Dispositive Sanctions Based Upon Sbarro and Ceballes' Spoliation of Evidence and Requesting Alternate Relief Under FRCP 50(B) for Judgement as a Matter of Law in Plaintiff's Favor and/or a New Trial, Under FRCP 59(A) for a New Trial, and/or Under FRCP 60(B)(1) and (3) for Relief from the Judgment [ECF No. 437]; 5) Motion for Dispositive Sanctions Based Upon Sbarro and Ceballes' Spoliation of Evidence and Requesting Alternate Relief Under FRCP 50(b) for Judgement as a Matter of Law in Plaintiff's Favor and/or a New Trial, Under FRCP 59(a) for a New Trial, and/or Under FRCP60(b)(1) and (3) for Relief from the Judgment [ECF No. 438]; 6) Motion for Dispositive Sanctions Based Upon Sbarro and Ceballes' Spoliation of Evidence and Requesting Alternate Relief Under FRCP 50(b) for Judgement as a Matter of Law in Plaintiff's Favor and/or a New Trial, Under FRCP 59(a) for a New Trial, and/or Under FRCP60(b)(1) and (3) for Relief from the Judgment [ECF No. 439]; and 7) Motion for Dispositive Sanctions Based Upon Sbarro and Ceballes' Spoliation of Evidence and Requesting Alternate Relief Under FRCP 50(b) for Judgment as a Matter of Law in Plaintiff's Favor and/or a New Trial, Under FRCP 59(a) for a New Trial, and/or Under FRCP60(b)(1) and (3) for Relief from the Judgment [ECF No. 440].
On October 18, 2022, Sbarro filed the following responses to Plaintiff's post-trial motions: 1) Opposition to Plaintiff's Renewal of Her Motions for Reconsideration and Clarification of This Court's Prior Order on Summary Judgment Dismissing Her Claims for Negligent Hiring, Negligent Supervision and Negligent Retention [ECF No. 441]; 2) Opposition to Plaintiff's Rule 50(b) Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law [ECF No. 442]; 3) Consolidated Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Dispositive Sanctions Based Upon Sbarro and Ceballes' Spoliation of Evidence and Requesting Alternate Relief Under FRCP 50(b) for Judgment as a Matter of Law in Plaintiff's Favor and/or a New Trial, Under FRCP 59(a) for a New Trial, and/or Under FRCP60(b)(1) and (3) for Relief from the Judgment [ECF No. 443]; and 4) Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for New Trial Pursuant to FRCP 59(A) [ECF No. 444]. On October 18, 2022, Ceballes joined each of Sbarro's responses to Plaintiff's post-trial motions [ECF Nos. 445-448].
Accordingly, Plaintiff's reply briefs in support of her post-trial motions were due on October 25, 2022. However, on October 25, 2022, the parties stipulated and agreed that Plaintiff would have until Monday, October 31, 2022, to file her reply briefs and filed a stipulation and order that reflected this stipulation and agreement [ECF No. 449]. Shortly thereafter, on October 26, 2022, the Court signed the stipulation and order [ECF No. 450].
II. LEGAL ARGUMENT
Pursuant to LR IA 6-1, this is the second request for an extension of time for Plaintiff to file her reply briefs in support of her post-trial motions. Plaintiff's counsel makes this request for good cause, and not for the purpose of delay, as Plaintiff's counsel is still addressing a family emergency. A declaration from Plaintiff's counsel, Jenny L. Foley, Ph.D., Esq., is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. Additionally, since these are post-trial motions, there is little chance of prejudice if the extension is granted.
III. CONCLUSION
In view of the foregoing considerations, herein Plaintiff requests the Court to grant an extension, up to and including November 7, 2022, in which to file Plaintiff's reply briefs in support of her post-trial motions.
IT IS SO ORDERED.