Opinion
2:22-cv-02069-APG-DJA
02-15-2023
PAUL TAYLOR, an individual, Plaintiff, v. MGM GRAND HOTEL, LLC, a Nevada Limited Liability Company; DOES I - X, inclusive; and ROE CORPORATIONS I - X, inclusive, Defendants.
PAUL T. TRIMMER, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 9291 KYLE J. HOYT, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 14886 JACKSON LEWIS P.C. Attorneys for Defendant MGM Grand Hotel, LLC ADAM R. FULTON, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 11572 LOGAN G. WILLSON, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 14967 Attorneys for Plaintiff
PAUL T. TRIMMER, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 9291
KYLE J. HOYT, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 14886
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
Attorneys for Defendant
MGM Grand Hotel, LLC
ADAM R. FULTON, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 11572
LOGAN G. WILLSON, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 14967
Attorneys for Plaintiff
STIPULATION TO EXTEND DEADLINE FOR DEFENDANT TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT [ECF NO. 1]
(FIRST REQUEST)
DANIEL J. ALBREGTS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between Plaintiff Paul Taylor (“Plaintiff”) through his counsel Jennings & Fulton, Ltd., and Defendant MGM GRAND HOTEL, LLC (“Defendant”), by and through its counsel Jackson Lewis P.C., that Defendant shall have an extension, up to and including Thursday, March 16, 2023, in which to file a response to Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. 1). The parties further stipulate that should Defendant file a Rule 12 motion in response to the Complaint, Plaintiff shall have twenty-one (21) days from filing to oppose the motion, and that Defendant shall reply in the ordinary course. This Stipulation is submitted and based upon the following:
1. Defendant's response to the Complaint (ECF No. 1) is currently due on February 14, 2023.
2. Defendant is preparing a response to the Complaint. However, completing the response has been delayed due as Defendant's counsel has recently been required to attend to other matters including the deposition of a plaintiff, discovery disputes, and preparation of dispositive motions in separate cases, which has delayed completing a response to the Complaint in this matter.
3. Counsel for the parties have recently discussed potential opportunities for resolution and wish to continue those discussions prior to pursuing litigation.
4. For the reasons set forth above, the parties stipulate that Defendant may have up to and including March 16, 2023 to file a response to the Complaint.
5. The parties have also discussed the possibility that Plaintiff's Counsel will be engaged in a trial set to begin February 27, 2023 and is estimated to take 25 judicial days. In the event that the Defendant files any motion under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12, Plaintiff's Counsel anticipates he will be unable to prepare a response in the normal course to oppose the motion due to the burdens of an ongoing trial. As such, the parties agree that if Defendant files a motion in response to the Complaint, Plaintiff will have twenty-one (21) days to file any opposition.
6. This is the first request for an extension of time for Defendant to file a response to Plaintiff's Complaint.
7. This request is made in good faith and not for the purpose of delay.
8. Nothing in this Stipulation, nor the fact of entering to the same, shall have the effect of or be construed as waiving any claim or defense held by any party hereto.
IT IS SO ORDERED: