Chapman v. Las Vegas Basketball L.P.
This text of Chapman v. Las Vegas Basketball L.P. (Chapman v. Las Vegas Basketball L.P.) 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.
Opinion
1 Dora V. Lane Nevada Bar No. 8424 2 Steven J.T. Washington Nevada Bar No. 14298 3 HOLLAND & HART LLP 9555 Hillwood Drive, 2nd Floor 4 Las Vegas, NV 89134 Phone: 702.669.4600 5 Fax: 702.669.4650 DLane@hollandhart.com 6 SJWashington@hollandhart.com 7 Attorneys for Defendant Las Vegas Basketball L.P. d/b/a 8 and a/k/a Las Vegas Aces (erroneously sued as LAS VEGAS ACES 9 d/b/a and a/k/a LAS VEGAS BASKETBALL L.P.) 10 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 13 DELORES CHAPMAN, on behalf of herself and Case No. 2:23-cv-00278-APG-VCF all others similarly situated; 14 Plaintiff, STIPULATION AND PROPOSED 15 ORDER STAY OF DISCOVERY v. PENDING RESOLUTION OF 16 ARAMARK ENTITIES AND LAS VEGAS ACES d/b/a and a/k/a LAS MANDALAY BAY, LLC DEFENDANTS’ 17 VEGAS BASKETBALL L.P.; MVP EVENT MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF NO. 47) PRODUCTIONS LLC d/b/a and a/k/a MVP 18 EVENT STAFFING; MANDALAY BAY, (FIRST REQUEST) LLC; ARAMARK SPORTS AND 19 ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, LLC; ARAMARK SPORTS AND 20 ENTERTAINMENT SERVICES, LLC; ARAMARK SPORTS, LLC; ARAMARK 21 SERVICES, INC.; GREG FIELDING; DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, 22 Defendants. 23 24 25 Plaintiff, DELORES CHAPMAN (“Plaintiff” or “Chapman”) Defendant, LAS VEGAS 26 BASKETBALL L.P. d/b/a and a/k/a LAS VEGAS ACES (“Las Vegas Aces”) (erroneously sued 27 as Las Vegas Aces d/b/a and a/k/a Las Vegas Basketball L.P.), and Defendants Aramark Entities 28 1 and Mandalay Bay, LLC (“Aramark & Mandalay Parties”) collectively (the “Parties”) by and 2 through their respective undersigned counsel, do hereby stipulate as follows: 3 1. Plaintiffs filed her Class Action Complaint in Eighth Judicial District Court in and 4 for Clark County, Nevada, Case No. A-22-861578-C on November 21, 2022, 2023. See ECF No. 5 1. 6 2. Las Vegas Aces were served with the Complaint on January 25, 2023. 7 3. Las Vegas Aces filed their Notice of Removal on February 22, 2023. See ECF No. 8 1. 9 4. On March 1, 2023, Las Vegas Aces filed their Answer to Plaintiff’s Class Action 10 Complaint. See ECF No. [ECF No. 7]. 11 5. On March 23, 2023, a Default was entered by the Clerk of the Court against MVP 12 Event Productions LLC dba and aka MVP Event Staffing. 13 6. In accordance with Rule 26(f) and LR 26-1(a), the Las Vegas Aces and Chapman 14 met and conferred on March 24, 2023. 15 7. On April 7, 2023, a Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order was entered by the 16 Court. 17 8. On June 22, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to Amend her Class Action 18 Complaint, which named new defendants to the action. 19 9. On Monday, July 3, 2023, Las Vegas Aces and Chapman met and conferred, and 20 agreed that a short extension to the dates and deadlines in the Scheduling Order would permit the 21 parties to fully and properly complete percipient witness and party discovery, expert 22 investigation, expert analysis, and expert discovery. 23 10. On July 11, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Amended 24 Complaint. (ECF No. 21). 25 11. On July 19, 2022, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint adding eight new 26 defendants. (ECF No. 22). 27 12. Defendant, Las Vegas Basketball L.P. filed their answer to the First Amended 28 1 13. Aramark Entities and Mandalay Bay, LLC filed a Motion to Dismiss or Strike 2 Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint on November 15, 2023. See ECF No. 47. 3 14. Aramark Entities and Mandalay Bay, LLC’s Motion to Dismiss seeks dismissal of 4 Plaintiffs’ Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which 5 relief can be granted as to all claims asserted in the Complaint. See generally ECF No. 47. 6 15. Given the pending Motion to Dismiss, the Parties have met and conferred 7 regarding discovery and have agreed to a temporary stay of discovery and compliance with Local 8 Rule 26-1 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f). Specifically, the Parties agree to temporarily stay discovery 9 in this matter at least until the Court adjudicates Aramark Entities and Mandalay Bay, LLC’s 10 Motion to Dismiss. 11 16. The Parties believe that good cause exists to warrant a temporary stay of discovery. 12 Courts have broad discretionary power to control discovery. See, e.g., Little v. City of Seattle, 863 13 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988). Requests to stay all discovery may be granted when: (1) the pending 14 motion is potentially dispositive in scope and effect; (2) the potentially dispositive motion can be 15 decided without additional discovery; and (3) the Court has taken a “preliminary peek” at the 16 merits of the potentially dispositive motion and is convinced that the plaintiff will be unable to 17 state a claim for relief. See Kor Media Grp., LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 581 (D. Nev. 2013). 18 17. Notwithstanding the foregoing stipulated stay of discovery, Plaintiff and Las 19 Vegas Aces and Chapman have served initial disclosures pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) on 20 April 7, 2023, Las Vegas Aces have served supplemental disclosures on May 26, 2023 and July 21 21, 2023. 22 18. The Parties further agree that in the event the Court denies Defendants’ Motion to 23 Dismiss in any part, the Parties agree to meet and confer in good faith regarding a proposed 24 discovery scheduling order upon Plaintiff's remaining claims and reserve all rights. 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 ] 19. Accordingly, the parties respectfully request that the Court grant this Stipulation to stay discovery in this matter pending the Court’s adjudication of Aramark Entities and Mandalay Bay, LLC’s Motion to Dismiss. 41 DATED this 28th day of November 2023. DATED this 28th day of November 2023. S|} HOLLAND & HART LLP GABROY | MESSER /s/ Steven J.T. Washington /s/ Christian Gabroy 7 Dora V. Lane (NV Bar No. 8424) Christian Gabroy (NV Bar No. 8805) Steven J.T. Washington (NV No. 14298) Kaine Messer (NV Bar No. 14240) 9555 Hillwood Drive, 2nd Floor 170 South Green Valley Parkway, Ste. 280 9 Las Vegas, NV 89134 Henderson, NV 89012 Attorneys for Defendant Attorneys for Plaintiff 101 Las Vegas Basketball L.P. d/b/a and a/k/a Las Vegas Aces (erroneously sued as LAS VEGAS ACES d/b/a and a/k/a LAS VEGAS BASKETBALL L.P.) : DATED this 28th day of November 2023 wT Zz = 14 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
g 2 15) “/ Jeffrey D. Winchester Jeffrey D. Winchester (NV Bar No. 10279) % 16] 6385 S. Rainbow Boulevard, Suite 600 BA Las Vegas, NV 89118 te 17 a MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 181 Michael J. Puma (pro hac vice forthcoming) Antonia M. Moran (pro hac vice pending) 9929 Market Street 30 Philadelphia, PA 19103 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 211! Sarah Zenewicz (pro hac vice pending) One Market, Spear Street Tower 221 San Francisco, CA 94105 23 Attorneys for Aramark Entities and Mandalay Bay, LLC 24 IT IS SO ORDERED:
26 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE November 29, 2023 27 DATED: 28
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Chapman v. Las Vegas Basketball L.P., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chapman-v-las-vegas-basketball-lp-nvd-2023.