Bier v. Ashley Furniture Industries, LLC

CourtDistrict Court, D. Nevada
DecidedJune 16, 2025
Docket2:24-cv-00291
StatusUnknown

This text of Bier v. Ashley Furniture Industries, LLC (Bier v. Ashley Furniture Industries, LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Nevada primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bier v. Ashley Furniture Industries, LLC, (D. Nev. 2025).

Opinion

1 BRIAN K. WALTERS, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 9711 2 CRAIG A. JACOBSON, ESQ. (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) 3 GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP 300 So. 4th Street, Suite 1550 4 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 Direct: (775) 467-2605 5 Facsimile: (702) 255-2858 E-Mail: bwalters@grsm.com 6 craig.jacobson@grsm.com

7 Attorneys for Ashley Furniture Industries, LLC; Ashley Distribution Services, Ltd; Ashley Global 8 Retail, LLC; and Ashley Furniture Home Store

9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

11 NICAELA M. BIER, individually, as heir, and as Case No.: 2:24-cv-00291-CDS- Personal Representative and Administratrix of the BNW 12 Estate of RYDER MICHAEL ROSS; and JOSHUA J. ROSS, individually and as heir; 13 Plaintiffs, JOINT MOTION FOR 14 v. EXTENSION OF REMAINING ASHLEY FURNITURE INDUSTRIES, LLC, a DISCOVERY DEADLINES TO 15 Foreign Limited-Liability Company; ASHLEY ACCOMMODATE DISTRIBUTION SERVICES, LTD., a Foreign MEDIATION 16 Limited Company; ASHLEY GLOBAL RETAIL, LLC, a Foreign Limited-Liability Company doing 17 business as ASHLEY FURNITURE HOME STORE and/or ASHLEY HOME STORE; PAULA 18 ANDREWS, an individual; DOES 1 through 30, inclusive; ROE BUSINESS ENTITIES 1 through 30, 19 inclusive. Defendants. 20

21 Plaintiffs, NICAELA M. BIER and JOSHUA J. ROSS (“Plaintiffs”), and Defendants, 22 ASHLEY FURNITURE INDUSTRIES, LLC, ASHLEY DISTRIBUTION SERVICES, LTD., 23 ASHLEY GLOBAL RETAIL, LLC, ASHLEY FURNITURE HOME STORES, and ASHLEY 24 HOME STORE (“Ashley Defendants”) (collectively, the “Parties”), by and through their 25 undersigned counsel of record, and pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this 26 Court’s December 17, 2024 Order (Doc. 25) (“Scheduling Order”), hereby file this Joint Motion 27 to Extend the Remaining Discovery Deadlines to Accommodate Mediation, and in support 1 thereof state the following: 2 1. On December 16, 2024, pursuant to Local Rule 26-1, the Parties filed their Joint 3 Proposed Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order. (Doc. 24) 4 2. On December 17, 2024, the Court entered a Scheduling Order, setting forth, in 5 relevant part, the following discovery and pre-trial deadlines: 6 Expert Disclosures Initial-Expert Disclosures: July 7, 2025 7 Rebuttal-Expert Disclosures: August 5, 2025 8 Discovery Completion September 4, 2025 9 Filing Dispositive Motions October 6, 2025 10 Joint Final Pre-Trial Order November 5, 2025 11 (See Doc. 25). 12

13 3. Since the Court’s entry of the Scheduling Order, the Parties have been diligently 14 engaged in litigation. To date, the Parties have completed written discovery, exchanged 15 extensive document productions, identified witnesses for deposition, and have discussed the 16 possibility of early resolution through mediation. 17 4. The Parties have agreed to participate in a private mediation with Judge Jennifer 18 Togliatti (Ret.). Based on Judge Togliatti’s current mediation availability, the Parties expect to 19 mediate at a date in September 2025. 20 5. The Parties desire to continue the remaining discovery deadlines to allow the 21 Parties to commit fully to the mediation process with Judge Togliatti, without incurring 22 additional and potentially unnecessary litigation costs and attorney’s fees. 23 6. In order to accommodate the time necessary for mediation, the Parties respectfully 24 request this Court extend the remaining deadlines in the Scheduling Order by approximately 120 25 days. 26 7. The Parties’ proposed extended deadlines are as follows: 27 1 Expert Disclosures Initial-Expert Disclosures: November 4, 2025 2 Rebuttal-Expert Disclosures: December 3, 2025 3 Discovery Completion January 9, 2026 4 Filing Dispositive Motions February 13, 2026 5 Joint Final Pre-Trial Order March 13, 2026 6

7 8. The Parties further request that any set trial date also be continued accordingly. 8 9. This is the Parties’ first request for extension of the deadlines in the Scheduling 9 Order, and the Parties agree that no party will be prejudiced by the discovery extensions jointly 10 sought herein. 11 10. Should this case resolve through mediation, the Parties will immediately file a 12 notice of settlement. 13 11. Should mediation result in impasse, the Parties agree to file a joint status report 14 advising the Court of the same. 15 12. This Motion is filed more than 21 days before the next discovery deadline (July 7, 16 2025) in this case, in compliance with the Scheduling Order, which specifically provides that 17 “[p]ursuant to Local Rule 26-3, any stipulation or motion to modify the Discovery Plan and 18 Scheduling Order must be made no later than twenty-one (21) days before the expiration of the 19 subject deadline.” (Doc. 25 at p. 7, ¶10). 20 13. This Motion is made in good faith and not for any improper purpose or undue 21 delay and is instead made out of an abundance of caution and to avoid unnecessary litigation fees 22 and expenses while the parties explore early resolution on this matter. 23 MEMORANDUM 24 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1), when an act must be done within a 25 specified time, the court may extend the time for good cause if the request for an extension is 26 made before the original time or its extension expires. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A). The rule is 27 “to be liberally construed to effectuate the general purpose of seeing that cases are tried on the 1 merits.” Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1258-59 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting 2 Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 459 (9th Cir. 1983)). The Ninth Circuit has described the “good 3 cause” standard as “less rigorous than excusable neglect.” Speiser, Krause & Madole P.C. v. 4 Ortiz, 271 F.3d 884, 887 (9th Cir. 2001). When evaluating whether the good cause standard has 5 been met, “[t]he Ninth Circuit has equated good cause with the exercise of due diligence.” 6 Mitchell v. Nevada, No. 2:17-CV-00686-APG-CWH, 2019 WL 12250310, at *1 (D. Nev. May 7 14, 2019) (citing Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 509 (9th Cir. 1992)); see 8 also Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1295 (9th Cir. 2000). 9 Local Rule 26-4 provides that: 10 A motion or stipulation to extend any date set by the discovery plan, scheduling order, or other order must, in addition to satisfying the requirements of LR IA 6-1, 11 be supported by a showing of good cause for the extension. A motion or stipulation to extend a deadline set forth in a discovery plan must be received by 12 the court no later than 21 days before the expiration of the subject deadline. A request made within 21 days of the subject deadline must be supported by a 13 showing of good cause. A request made after the expiration of the subject deadline will not be granted unless the movant also demonstrates that the failure 14 to act was the result of excusable neglect.

15 Mitchell, 2019 WL 12250310, at *2 (quoting Local Rule 26-4). 16 The Parties have diligently been working to move this case forward. After extensive 17 motion practice with respect to the pleadings and removal, the Parties have completed written 18 discovery, exchanged document productions, and identified party-witnesses for deposition.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Bier v. Ashley Furniture Industries, LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bier-v-ashley-furniture-industries-llc-nvd-2025.