Dwight Malloy, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Amazon.com Services LLC

Opinion

1] DWIGHT MALLOY, on behalf of himself Case No. 2:22-cv-00286-ART-MDC and all others similarly situated; Plaintiffs, JOINT STIPULATION TO SET vs. BRIEFING SCHEDULE AND DEFER DISCOVERY PLAN AND SCHEDULING AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC, ORDER 54 Defendant, (FIRST REQUEST) Plaintiff DWIGHT MALLOY (‘Plaintiff’) and Defendant AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC (“Amazon”) (“Defendant”), by and through their counsel of record, stipulate as follows: On July 1, 2024, the Court certified the following question to the Nevada Supreme Court:

“Does Nevada law incorporates the Portal-to-Portal Act?” ECF 56. The Court then stayed the deadline for the parties to submit a proposed discovery plan and scheduling order pending the Nevada Supreme Court’s decision on the certified question. ECF 59. On October 30, 2025, the Nevada Supreme Court issued its decision in Amazon.com Services, LLC v. Malloy, 141 Nev. Adv. Op. 50 (2025), which held that “[a] plain-language reading of NRS Chapter 608 indicates the Nevada Legislature did not adopt the broad work-compensation exceptions from the [Portal to Portal Act].... We thus answer the certified question, as rephrased, in the negative: No, Nevada did not incorporate the PPA into its wage-hour laws.” On November 21, 2025, the Nevada Supreme Court’s decision was filed in this case’s docket, and the Court ordered the parties to (a) meet and confer about appropriate timing for submission of a proposed Stipulated Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order and (b) submit an additional stipulation outlining their proposal for timing of the Stipulated Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order by December 9, 2025. ECF 62. Following the Nevada Supreme Court’s decision in Malloy, the Nevada Legislature passed Senate Bill 8 (“SB 8”), which amended NRS § 608.016 to incorporate the federal Portal-to-Portal Act. SB 8 amended Nevada Revised Statute § 608.016 to explicitly “exclude from hours of work such time excluded by sections 2 and 4 of the Portal-to-Portal Act.” Section 3 of SB 8 states as follows: The amendatory provisions of section | of this act apply to any action or proceeding that is pending as of the effective date of this act or filed on or after the effective date of this act, including, without limitation, such an action or proceeding where an act, omission or underlying event giving rise to the action or proceeding occurred before the effective date of this act or on or after the effective date of this act and not later than October 31, 2029. Governor Lombardo signed SB 8 into law on November 20, 2025. The parties disagree about whether SB 8 can be applied retroactively. Defendant therefore intends to move for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). The parties have conferred and agreed on a schedule that will conserve court and party resources and ensure that the parties will have sufficient time to analyze and brief the impact of SB 8 without unduly delaying resolution of this case. 2.

] THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between Plaintiff and Defendant as follows: 1. Defendant shall file its Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on or before January ) 23, 2026. 2. Plaintiff shall file a response to Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on or before February 23, 2026. 3. Defendant shall file its reply in support of its Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on or before March 16, 2026. 4. The deadline for the parties to submit a proposed discovery plan and scheduling order shall be stayed pending this Court’s decision on Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. 1] } /// } /// /// /// /// 3.

] 5. If the Court permits any claims in the case to proceed, the parties will (a) meet and confer about appropriate timing for submission of a proposed Stipulated Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order and (b) submit an additional stipulation outlining their proposal for timing of the Stipulated Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order. Dated: December 9, 2025 Dated: December 9, 2025 Respectfully submitted, Respectfully submitted, /s/ Don J. Foty, Esq. /s/ Amy L. Thompson, Esq. DON J. FOTY MONTGOMERY Y. PAEK LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 1] ESTHER C. RODRIGUEZ BRADLEY J. HAMBURGER D RODRIGUEZ LAW OFFICES, P.C. MEGAN M. COONEY ANDREW G.I. KILBERG B Attorneys for Plaintiff GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP DWIGHT MALLOY Attorneys for Defendant AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC

Anne R. Traum United States District Judge 51 DATED: December 10, 2025

4.