Dey-Sarkar v. Adesina

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: February 28, 2025
• Docket: 3:23-cv-00517
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 Patrick H. Hicks, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 4632 2 Karyn M. Taylor, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 6142 3 Luke W. Molleck, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 14405 4 LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 200 South Virginia Street, 8th Floor 5 Reno, Nevada 89501 Telephone: 775.348.4888 6 Fax No.: 775.786.0127 phicks@littler.com 7 kmtaylor@littler.com lmolleck@littler.com 8 Attorney for Defendant NV ENERGY, INC. d/b/a 9 SIERRA PACIFIC POWER COMPANY 10 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 13 14 PRIYA DEY-SAKAR, Case No. 3:23-cv-00517-MMD-CLB 15 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION TO STAY ACTION PENDING 16 v. MEDIATION 17 DANIEL ADESINA, in his individual capacity; 18 STATE OF NEVADA, ex rel. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMISSION OF NEVADA, a 19 governmental entity; and 20 NV ENERGY, INC. d/b/a SIERRA PACIFIC POWER COMPANY, a Nevada corporation, 21 Defendants. 22 23 The Parties in this case, Plaintiff PRIYA DEY-SARKAR (“Plaintiff”) and NV ENERGY, INC. 24 d/b/a SIERRA PACIFIC POWER COMPANY (“NV Energy”) (collectively the “Parties”), by and 25 through their respective counsel, hereby request and stipulate to stay the action as it relates to 26 Plaintiff’s claims asserted against NV Energy, pending private mediation. 27 The purpose of this request is to promote judicial economy and allow this court to control the 28 disposition of its cases with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel and the litigants. See 1 Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936) (“[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the 2 power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of 3 time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.”); Pate v. DePay Orthopedics, Inc., 2012 WL 4 3532780, at * 2 (D. Nev. Aug. 14, 2012) (“A trial court may, with propriety, find it is efficient for its 5 own docket and the fairest course for the parties to enter a stay of an action before it, pending resolution 6 of independent proceedings which bear upon the case.”), citing Leyva v. Certified Grocers of Cal., 7 Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 863 (9th Cir. 1979). 8 The Parties have scheduled mediation for April 16, 2025, before Hon. Carl W. Hoffman (Ret.) 9 and will endeavor to resolve all claims in this action. Pending the outcome of the Parties’ mediation, 10 the Parties will provide a Status Report to the Court no later than fifteen (15) calendar days following 11 the mediation setting forth the following: 12 1) Should the Parties reach a settlement, the Parties will update the Court as to the tentative 13 resolution; or 14 2) Should the Parties be unsuccessful at resolving all claims, the Parties shall set forth an 15 updated proposed discovery plan and scheduling order. This Stipulation is made in good faith and not 16 for the purposes of undue burden or delay. 17 IT IS SO STIPULATED: 18 19 DATED: February 27, 2025 DATED: February 27, 2025 20 21 /s/ Karyn M. Taylor /s/ John Neil Stephenson PATRICK H. HICKS, ESQ. John Neil Stephenson, Esq. 22 KARYN M. TAYLOR, ESQ. Stephenson Law, PLLC 23 LUKE W. MOLLECK, ESQ. 1770 Verdi Vista Court Littler Mendelson, P.C. Reno, NV 89523 24 Attorney for Defendant Attorney for Plaintiff 25 NV ENERGY, INC. d/b/a SIERRA PACIFIC POWER COMPANY 26

28 1 ORDER 2 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Parties’ Stipulation and Order to stay action in the 3 above-captioned matter is GRANTED. 4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Parties will, within 15 days of mediation, provide a 5 6 status report to the Court setting forth the following: 7 1) Should the Parties reach a settlement, the Parties will update the Court as to the tentative 8 || resolution; or 9 2) Should the Parties be unsuccessful at resolving all claims, the Parties shall set forth an 10 updated proposed discovery plan and scheduling order. 11 12 IT IS SO ORDERED:

14 DATED: February 28, 2025 15 NITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 || 4914-9880-0663.2 / 022720-1095 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ITTLER 2 8 P.C. . Virginia St 4944