Darrough v. SOC LLC

Opinion

1 || E. Leif Reid, Bar No. 5750 LReid@lewisroca.com 2 || Jennifer K. Hostetler, Bar No. 11994 JHostetler@lewisroca.com 3 || LEWIS ROCA ROTHGERBER CHRISTIE LLP 3993 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 600 4 || Las Vegas, NV 89169 Tel: (702) 949-8200 5 || Fax: (702) 949-8378 6 || Tara M. Lee, Pro Hac Vice Tara.Lee@whitecse.com 7 | Scott Lerner, Pro Hac Vice Scott.Lerner@whitecase.com 8 || WHITE & CASE LLP 701 Thirteenth Street, NW 9 |} Washington, DC 20005-3807 Tel: (202) 626-3600 10 || Fax: (202) 639-9355 11 || Attorneys for Defendants 12 5 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA o 14 > GENE DARROUGH, an individual, on behalf | Case No.: 2:20-cv-01951-APG-BNW < 15 |! of himself and all others similarly situated, 2 16 oe Plaintiff, 17 CONSENT MOTION AND ORDER TO vs. STAY BRIEFING DEADLINE TO 18 COURT’S ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE SOC LLC, a Delaware limited liability 19 || company; SOC-SMG, Inc., a Nevada [FIRST REQUEST] corporation; DAY & ZIMMERMANN, INC., a 20 || Maryland corporation; and DOES 1-20, inclusive, 21 efendants. Defend

23 24 Pursuant to LR IA 6-1, LR JA 6-2, and LR 7-1, Defendants SOC LLC (“SOC”), SOC- 25 || SMG, Inc. (SOC-SMG”), and Day & Zimmermann, Inc. (“Day & Zimmermann’) (collectively, 26 || “Defendants”), hereby respectfully request this Court stay its order for Defendants to show cause 27 || by November 12, 2021 (ECF No. 32) until 21 days after the Ninth Circuit rules whether federal 28 || subject matter jurisdiction exists over the related action DeFiore v. SOC LLC, No. 2:20-cv-01981-

1 |} APG-EJY. 2 “(T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to 3 || control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for 4 || counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). Where there is a 5 || separate proceeding, a trial court may “find it is efficient for its own docket and the fairest course 6 || for the parties to enter a stay of an action before it, pending resolution of independent proceedings 7 || which bear upon the case.” Leyva v. Certified Grocers of California, Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 863-64 8 || (9th Cir. 1979). A stay may be appropriate if “it appears likely the other proceedings will be 9 || concluded within a reasonable time in relation to the urgency of the claims presented to the court.” 10 || ld. 11 This Action and DeFiore are related cases arising from a previously dismissed class action 12 || captioned Risinger v. SOC LLC, No. 2:12-cv-00063-MMD-BNW. See Order 2-3, ECF No. 32. 13 |] All three cases involve allegations from security guards against Defendants (private security 14 || contractors) concerning hiring practices and working conditions in Iraq during the Iraq War. See 2 15 || id. The only difference between the cases are the plaintiffs. This Action is a putative class action 16 || comprised of a subset of class members from Risinger and DeFiore is a multi-plaintiff action 17 || comprised of select class members from Risinger. See id. at 3-4. Plaintiffs in this Action and 18 || DeFiore originally filed their complaints in Nevada state court and Defendants removed them to 19 |] this Court. See id. at 3-4. 20 Defendants asserted removal was proper for this Action under three separate bases: (1) 21 || diversity jurisdiction, (2) the Class Action Fairness Act, and (3) the Federal Officer Removal 22 || Statute. See Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1. This Court agreed that it had federal subject matter 23 || jurisdiction over this Action pursuant to CAFA without addressing the other grounds for removal. 24 || See id. at 4. In DeFiore, Defendants asserted removal was proper under the Federal Officer 25 || Removal Statute. See Order 3. But this Court was not satisfied that the Federal Officer Removal 26 || Statute applied in DeFiore and therefore granted Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand. See id. 27 In DeFiore, Defendants appealed this Court’s order remanding the action to state court. 28 || See ECF No. 36. Plaintiffs and Defendants fully briefed whether the Federal Officer Removal

115992777.1 -2-

1 || Statute applies to Defendants’ alleged actions in Iraq, which gave rise to the DeFiore dispute (and 2 || this Action and the prior Risinger action). See generally DeFiore v. SOC LLC, No. 21-15261 (9th 3 || Cir. Feb. 16, 2021). Moreover, the parties conducted oral argument before the Ninth Circuit on 4 || November 8, 2021. The parties now await a ruling by the Ninth Circuit as to whether federal 5 || subject matter exists pursuant to the Federal Officer Removal Statute. 6 Following removal of this Action, Defendants moved to dismiss the putative class claims 7 || and Darrough’s individual claims. See Mot. Dismiss, ECF No. 17. This Court granted 8 || Defendants’ motion in part, dismissing the putative class action claims and ordering Defendants 9 || to show cause as to why this Action should not be remanded now that CAFA does not provide 10 |] federal subject matter jurisdiction. See Order 10. For this Court to have continued subject matter 11 jurisdiction over this Action, it must find support from either the Federal Officer Removal Statute 12 or diversity jurisdiction. 13 Because the application of Federal Officer Removal Statute is currently pending before the 14 |] Ninth Circuit, and because the Ninth Circuit’s ruling in DeFiore will necessarily affect briefing in 2 15 || response to this Court’s order to show cause in this Action, Defendants respectfully request this 16 |} Court stay Defendants’ deadline to show cause, which is currently set for November 12, 2021, 17 || until 21 days after the Ninth Circuit files its opinion in DeFiore. 18 |] /// 19 |] /// 20 |] /// 21 |] ///

22 || /// 23 | ///

24 || /// 25 /// 26 || /// 27 | /// 28 | ///

115992777.1 -3-

] WHEREFORE, and with consent by Plaintiff, Defendants respectfully request this Court 2 || grant this motion to stay its deadline to show cause by November 12, 2021 until 21 days after the 3 || Ninth Circuit files its opinion in DeFiore concerning the Federal Officer Removal Statute. 4 DATED this 10th day of November, 2021. 5 LEWIS ROCA ROTHGERBER CHRISTIE 6 LLP 7 g By: /s/ Jennifer_K. Hostetler E. Leif Reid, Bar No. 5750 9 LReid@lewisroca.com Jennifer K. Hostetler, Bar No. 11994 10 JHostetler@lewisroca.com ll 3993 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 600 Las Vegas, NV 89169 12 Tel.: (702) 949-8200 Fax: (702) 949-8398

13 WHITE & CASE LLP 14 Z 15 5 16 By: _s/ Tara M. Lee Tara M. Lee, Pro Hac Vice 17 Tara. Lee@whitecase.com Scott Lerner, Pro Hac Vice 18 Scott.Lerner@whitecase.com 701 Thirteenth Street, NW 19 Washington, DC 20005-3807 0 Tel: (202) 626-3600 Fax: (202) 639-9355 21 Attorneys for Defendants 22

23 ORDER 24 IT IS SO ORDERED: 25 26 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 27 DATED: November 15, 2021 28

115992777.1 -4-

1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 2 I hereby certify that on November 10, 2021, I caused a true and accurate copy of the 3 || foregoing document entitled CONSENT MOTION AND ORDER TO STAY BRIEFING 4 || DEADLINE TO COURT’S ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE [FIRST REQUEST] to be filed via 5 || the Court’s CM/ECF system, which will accomplish service on all parties of record through their 6 || counsel. 7 8 /s/___Dana K. Provost 9 An Employee of Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP

10 1] 12 5 13 So 14 Z 15 g 16 17 18 19

20 21

24 25 26 27 28

115992777.1 -5-