Palmeri v. United Rentals (RTH America), Inc.

Full title: JAMES PALMERI, Plaintiff, v. UNITED RENTALS (RTH AMERICA), INC.; DOE…

Court: United States District Court, District of Nevada

Date published: Jan 17, 2023

2:22-cv-1981-JCM-NJK (D. Nev. Jan. 17, 2023)

Opinion

2:22-cv-1981-JCM-NJK

01-17-2023

JAMES PALMERI, Plaintiff, v. UNITED RENTALS (RTH AMERICA), INC.; DOE INDIVIDUALS I through X; and ROE ENTITIES I through X, Defendants.

LEGAL RESOURCE GROUP GLENN SCHEPPS, ESQ. Attorneys for Plaintiff James Palmeri JACKSON LEWIS P.C. JOSHUA A. SLIKER, ESQ Attorneys for Defendant United Rentals (North America), Inc.

LEGAL RESOURCE GROUP GLENN SCHEPPS, ESQ. Attorneys for Plaintiff James Palmeri

JACKSON LEWIS P.C. JOSHUA A. SLIKER, ESQ Attorneys for Defendant United Rentals (North America), Inc.

EXTENDING TIME FOR DEFENDANT UNITED RENTALS (NORTH AMERICA), INC. TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT (ECF NO. 1-1)

(THIRD REQUEST)

Defendant United Rentals (North America), Inc. (“Defendant” or “United Rentals”), by and through its counsel, the law firm of Jackson Lewis P.C., and Plaintiff James Palmeri, by and through his counsel, Glenn Schepps, Esq., hereby stipulate and agree to extend the time for Defendant to file its response to Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. 1-1) up to and including February 3, 2022.

This is the third request for an extension of time for Defendant to respond to Plaintiff's Complaint. Defendant filed a motion seeking an extension on December 5, 2022. ECF No. 4. The Court granted Defendant's motion on December 14, 2022. ECF No. 6. Defendant's response to Plaintiff's Complaint is currently due on December 16, 2022. Id. On December 15, 2022, the parties stipulated to extend Defendant's time to answer to January 13, 2023 in order to allow time for the parties to engage in settlement discussions.

The parties have agreed to again extend the deadline for Defendant to file its response to the Complaint because they remain engaged in settlement discussions. Currently, the parties are finalizing the terms of a stipulated protective order which they anticipate submitting to the Court next week to facilitate the exchange of sensitive documents which will aid the parties' settlement discussions. The parties have made significant progress in their discussions and anticipate a resolution one way or another soon. The length of the extension takes into account the fact that Defendant's counsel will be out of the office and travelling from January 19^th to January 29, 2023. The parties believe these circumstances constitute good cause for granting an extension because doing so will allow time to attempt to settle this case at the outset, and thus, if successful, avoid the need for the parties and the Court to expend time and resources on motion practice related to Plaintiff's arbitration agreement and substance of the Complaint. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b)(1); Wong v. Regents of the Univ. of Calif., 410 F.3d 1052, 1060 (9th Cir. 2005).

ORDER

IT IS SO ORDERED.