Opinion
2:23-cv-01777
11-14-2023
PAUL ZARI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated Plaintiff, v. MGM RESORTS INTERNATIONAL, Defendant.
Nathan R. Ring J. Gerard Stranch IV (Pro Hac Vice) STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class Lynn A. Toops (Pro Hac Vice) Amina A. Thomas (Pro Hac Vice) COHEN & MALAD, LLP Todd L. Bice PISANELLI BICE, PLLC Angela C. Agrusa (CA State Bar No 131337)* DLA PIPER LLP (US) *Pro hac vice application forthcoming Attorneys for Defendant MGM Resorts International
Nathan R. Ring
J. Gerard Stranch IV (Pro Hac Vice)
STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC
Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class
Lynn A. Toops (Pro Hac Vice)
Amina A. Thomas (Pro Hac Vice)
COHEN & MALAD, LLP
Todd L. Bice
PISANELLI BICE, PLLC
Angela C. Agrusa (CA State Bar No 131337)*
DLA PIPER LLP (US)
*Pro hac vice application forthcoming
Attorneys for Defendant
MGM Resorts International
STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT (FIRST REQUEST)
HON. BRENDA WEKSLER, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pursuant to LR IA 6-1, Plaintiff Paul Zari and Defendant MGM Resorts International (“MGM”) (collectively, the “Parties”) respectfully stipulate that MGM's time to respond to the Complaint be extended from the current deadline of November 24, 2023, to and including December 12, 2023. This is the first stipulation for an extension of time to file MGM's responsive pleading.
Good cause exists to enlarge the time for MGM to respond to the Complaint. Between September 21 and November 10, 2023, eleven other related actions were filed against MGM in this and two other federal courts (the “Related Actions”). See Owens v. MGM Resorts Int'l, No. 2:23-cv-01480 (D. Nev.); Kirwan v. MGM Resorts Int'l, No. 2:23-cv-01481 (D. Nev.); Zussman v. VICI Properties 1 LLC, et al., No. 2:23-cv-01537 (D. Nev.); Lackey v. MGM Resorts Int'l, No. 2:23-cv-01549 (D. Nev.); Pircio v. MGM Resorts Int'l, No. 2:23-cv-01550 (D. Nev.); Terezo v. MGM Resorts Int'l, No. 2:23-cv-01577 (D. Nev.); Rundell v. MGM Resorts Int'l, No. 2:23-cv-01698 (D. Nev.); Bezak v. MGM Resorts Int'l, No. 2:23-cv-01719 (D. Nev.); Manson v. MGM Resorts Int'l, No. 2:23-cv-01826 (D. Nev.); Albrigo v. MGM Resorts Int'l, No. 3:23-cv-01797 (S.D. Cal.); Lassoff v. MGM Resorts Int'l, et al., No. 1:23-cv-20419 (D.N.J.).
MGM's counsel was only recently retained and requires additional time to review, investigate, and analyze the allegations in both the Complaint and the Related Actions. Moreover, based on the Parties' current understanding of the claims, there are significant overlaps between this action and the Related Actions. As such, additional time is required to permit time to meet and confer with the various parties to the Related Actions, evaluate the potential consolidation of the cases, and conserve judicial resources.
The Parties' request is made in good faith to enable MGM to complete an investigation into Plaintiff's claims. Moreover, this case is in its infancy, and this request will not prejudice any party.
WHEREAS the Parties respectfully request that the Court extend MGM's time to answer, move, or otherwise respond to the Complaint from November 24, 2023, to and including December 12, 2023.
IT IS SO ORDERED: