Opinion
2:23-cv-01447-ART-BNW 2:23-cv-01482-ART-BNW 2:23- cv-01483-ART-BNW 2:23- cv-01562-ART-BNW 3:23- cv-00470-ART-BNW
10-12-2023
MIGUEL RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Caesars Entertainment, Inc., Defendant. PAUL GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Caesars Entertainment, Inc., Defendant. ALEXIS GIUFFRE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Caesars Entertainment, Inc., Defendant. DAVID LACKEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Caesars Entertainment, Inc., Defendant. THOMAS MCNICHOLAS and LAURA MCNICHOLAS, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Caesars Entertainment, Inc., Defendant.
Adam Hosmer-Henner (NSBN 12779) Chelsea Latino (NSBN 14227) Jane Susskind (NSBN 15099) McDONALD CARANO LLP LATHAM & WATKINS LLP Serrin Turner (pro hac vice to be filed) Marissa Alter-Nelson (pro hac vice to be filed) Sean M. Berkowitz (pro hac vice to be filed) Attorneys for Defendant Caesars Entertainment, Inc. LAW OFFICES OF MILES N. CLARK, LLC Miles N. Clark John A. Yanchunis* Ra O. Amen* MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP Michael D. Braun* KUZYK LAW, LLP Counsel for Plaintiff Miguel Rodriguez David C. O'Mara Nevada Bar No. 8599 THE O'MARA LAW FIRM, P.C. Ben Barnow* Anthony L. Parkhill* BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. Counsel for Plaintiffs Thomas and Laura McNicholas Nathan R. Ring STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC Jeff Ostrow* KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT Counsel for Plaintiffs Paul Garcia and Alexis Guffrie Don Springmeyer, Esq. (NBN 1021) KEMP JONES, LLP James J. Pizzirusso* Amanda V. Boltax* HAUSFELD LLP Steve N. Nathan* HAUSFELD LLP Douglas J. McNamara* Brian E. Johnson* COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC Counsel for Plaintiff David Lackey
Adam Hosmer-Henner (NSBN 12779)
Chelsea Latino (NSBN 14227)
Jane Susskind (NSBN 15099)
McDONALD CARANO LLP
LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
Serrin Turner (pro hac vice to be filed)
Marissa Alter-Nelson (pro hac vice to be filed)
Sean M. Berkowitz (pro hac vice to be filed)
Attorneys for Defendant Caesars Entertainment, Inc.
LAW OFFICES OF MILES N. CLARK, LLC
Miles N. Clark
John A. Yanchunis*
Ra O. Amen*
MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
Michael D. Braun*
KUZYK LAW, LLP
Counsel for Plaintiff Miguel Rodriguez
David C. O'Mara Nevada Bar No. 8599
THE O'MARA LAW FIRM, P.C.
Ben Barnow*
Anthony L. Parkhill*
BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C.
Counsel for Plaintiffs Thomas and Laura McNicholas
Nathan R. Ring
STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC
Jeff Ostrow*
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT
Counsel for Plaintiffs Paul Garcia and Alexis Guffrie
Don Springmeyer, Esq. (NBN 1021)
KEMP JONES, LLP
James J. Pizzirusso*
Amanda V. Boltax*
HAUSFELD LLP
Steve N. Nathan*
HAUSFELD LLP
Douglas J. McNamara*
Brian E. Johnson*
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC
Counsel for Plaintiff David Lackey
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING TIME FOR DEFENDANT CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT, INC. TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINTS (FIRST REQUEST)
BRENDA WEKSLER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
WHEREAS, Rodriguez v. Caesars Entertainment, Inc. No. 2:23-cv-01447-ART-BNW, was filed on September 15, 2023 (ECF No. 1);
WHEREAS, Defendant Caesars Entertainment, Inc. (“Caesars”) was served with the Rodriguez complaint on September 21, 2023 (Dkt. 6);
WHEREAS, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 12(a), Caesars's response to the Rodriguez Complaint would otherwise be due on or before October 12, 2023;
WHEREAS, Garcia v. Caesars Entertainment, Inc. No. 2:23-cv-01482-ART-BNW, was filed on September 21, 2023 (Dkt. 1);
WHEREAS, Caesars was served with the Garcia complaint on September 25, 2023 (Dkt. 7);
WHEREAS, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 12(a), Caesars's response to the Garcia Complaint would otherwise be due on or before October 16, 2023;
WHEREAS, Guiffre v. Caesars Entertainment, Inc. No. 2:23-cv-01483-ART-BNW, was filed on September 21, 2023 (Dkt. 1);
WHEREAS, Caesars was served with the Garcia complaint on September 25, 2023;
WHEREAS, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 12(a), Caesars's response to the Guiffre Complaint would otherwise be due on or before October 16, 2023;
WHEREAS, McNicholas v. Caesars Entertainment, Inc. No. 3:23-cv-00470-ART-BNW, was filed on September 22, 2023 (Dkt. 1);
WHEREAS, Caesars was served with the Garcia complaint on September 26, 2023;
WHEREAS, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 12(a), Caesars's response to the Garcia Complaint would otherwise be due on or before October 17, 2023;
WHEREAS, Lackey v. Caesars Entertainment, Inc. No. 2:23-cv-01562-ART-BNW, was filed on September 29, 2023 (Dkt. 1);
WHEREAS, Caesars has yet to be served with the Lackey Complaint;
WHEREAS, on October 4, 2023, the Garica, Guiffre, McNicholas and Lackey complaints were related to the Rodriguez complaint and transferred to the Honorable Anne R. Traum (Rodriguez Dkt. 10) (the “Related Actions”);
WHEREAS, on October 5, 2023, counsel for Rodriguez, Garcia, Guiffre, McNicholas and Lackey filed an Unopposed Motion to Consolidate Cases for Pre-Trial Proceedings (Rodriguez Dkt. 11) (the “Motion to Consolidate”);
WHEREAS, the Motion to Consolidate provides that all deadlines in all of the Related Actions are to be stayed, and further anticipates the filing of a consolidated complaint and proposed deadline for Caesars to respond to the consolidated complaint;
WHEREAS, the Court has yet to act on the Motion to Consolidate, and thus Caesars currently faces upcoming response deadlines in the Related Actions in which it has been served;
WHEREAS, to avoid unnecessary expenditure of resources and effort responding to individual complaints in the Related Actions where all Parties are agreed that the complaints should first be consolidated, and where the Motion to Consolidate is currently pending before the Court, the Parties have agreed to extend the time for Caesars to respond to the Complaints until forty-five (45) days following the service of a consolidated complaint, as requested in the Motion to Consolidate, or, if the Court denies the Motion to Consolidate, forty-five (45) days after the Court issues such decision. There is good cause to grant this request, which is not made for the purposes of delay.
It is therefore STIPULATED and AGREED that:
1. Defendant shall file and serve any answer or other response within forty-five (45) days of the filing of a consolidated complaint, if the pending Motion to Consolidate is granted.
2. If the Motion to Consolidate is not granted, Defendant shall file and serve any answer or other response to the complaints in the Related Actions within forty-five (45) days of the Court's decision.
IT IS SO ORDERED: