Garay v. City of Las Vegas

Opinion

1 Ernest I. Herrera (pro hac vice) Luis L. Lozada (pro hac vice) 2 MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND 3 634 South Spring Street, 11th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90014 4 Telephone: (213) 629-2512 Facsimile: (213) 629-0266 5 Email: eherrera@maldef.org llozada@ma ldef.org 6 F.Travis Buchanan, Esq. 7 NV Bar No. 9371 F.TRAVIS BUCHANAN, ESQ., 8 & ASSOC., PLLC 701 East Bridger, Suite 540 9 Las Vegas, NV 89101 Telephone: (702) 331-5478 10 Facsimile: (702) 629-6919 Email: FtbLaw@gmail.com 11 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 12 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 14 15 ALICIA INES MOYA GARAY, JUAN Case No.: 2:20-cv-00119-GMN-EJY JAIME LOPEZ-JIMENEZ, and ARRIBA 16 LAS VEGAS WORKER CENTER, STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND SCHEDULING DEADLINES 17 Plaintiffs, (F IRST REQUEST) 18 vs. 19 CITY OF LAS VEGAS, UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND 20 CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, et al., 21 Defendants. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 Under LR IA 6-1 and LR 26-3, the Parties, by and through their respective counsel of 2 3 record, stipulate and request that this Court extend the Scheduling Deadlines in the above- 4 captioned case. Plaintiffs Alicia Ines Moya Garay, Juan Jaime Lopez-Jimenez, and Arriba Las 5 Vegas Worker Center (“Plaintiffs”) and Defendants City of Las Vegas, United States Immigration 6 and Customs Enforcement, et al. (“Defendants”) stipulate and respectfully request a five-month 7 extension of the current scheduling order deadlines. In support of this Stipulation and Request, 8 the Parties state as follows: 9 10 A. DISCOVERY COMPLETED TO DATE 11 Plaintiffs Alicia Ines Moya Garay, Juan Jaime Lopez-Jimenez, and Arriba Las Vegas 12 Worker Center (“Plaintiffs”) filed their Fourth Amended Complaint on November 5, 2024. 13 Defendant United States Customs and Immigration Enforcement, et al. (“Federal Defendants”) 14 filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Fourth Amended Complaint on December 17, 2024. 15 Defendant City of Las Vegas, et al. (“City Defendants”) filed an answer to the Fourth Amended 16 Complaint on December 17, 2024. Federal Defendants made their initial disclosures on February 17 4, 2025. City Defendants propounded their Second Set of Requests for Production of Documents 18 and Interrogatories on June 5, 2025. The Court entered an order denying Federal Defendants’ 19 motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amended Complaint on June 13, 2025. 20 Plaintiffs have not amended their pleadings or added any parties to this action since filing 21 their Fourth Amended Complaint. Further, none of the Parties have disclosed experts or rebuttal 22 experts as specified in the Stipulated Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order [dkt. 141]. 23 B. DISCOVERY REMAINING TO BE COMPLETED 24 The Parties in this case continue to propound and respond to written discovery, and must 25 conduct depositions. 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 1 C. REASONS FOR REQUEST OF SCHEDULING DEADLINES 2 The Parties seek an extension of the scheduling deadlines. An extension of dates and 3 deadlines requires good and just cause. See LR 26-3. A party may show good cause to modify a 4 schedule date “if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the 5 extension.” See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). 6 Prejudice to “the party opposing the modification” may also be relevant. See id. 7 Plaintiffs met and conferred with City Defendants and Federal Defendants, respectively, 8 on June 17 and 18, 2025. Defendants do not oppose an extension of the scheduling deadlines. 9 Plaintiffs understood that they were unable to conduct written discovery until the pending motion 10 to dismiss was adjudicated, which occurred on June 13, 2025. Further, Federal Defendants 11 believed that they should not be subject to discovery until the Court determined which, if any, 12 claims Plaintiffs may assert against them, as well as questions concerning the organizational 13 plaintiff’s standing. 14 Because of the pending motion to dismiss that was recently adjudicated and because 15 Defendants do not oppose the request, the Parties demonstrate good and just cause for the 16 extension. The Parties respectfully request a five-month extension of the current scheduling order 17 deadlines in accordance the proposed scheduling order below. 18 D. PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR COMPLETING DISCOVERY 19 1.Discovery Cut-Off Date December 8, 2025 20 2.Dispositive Motions Due January 23, 2026 21 3.All Other Motions Due February 9, 2026 22 4.Pretrial Order March 9, 2026 23 5.Pretrial Conference March 26, 2026 24 6.Jury Trial (City Defendants) (estimated 2 weeks) April 9, 2026 25 7.Bench Trial (Federal Defendants (estimated 2 weeks) April 9, 2026 26 27 28 1 Dated: June 20, 2025 2 3 MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE JEFF M. DOROCAK AND EDUCATIONAL FUND Las Vegas City Attorney 4 /s/ Luis L. Lozada /s/ Paul Mata 5 Luis L. Lozada Deputy City Attorney Ernest I. Herrera NV Bar No. 14922 6 MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE 495 South Main Street, 6th Floor 7 AND EDUCATIONAL FUND Las Vegas, NV 89101 634 South Spring Street, 11 Floor 8 Los Angeles, CA 90014 Attorneys for City Defendants Telephone: (213) 629-2512 9 F.Travis Buchanan, Esq. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 10 NV Bar No. 9371 Office of Immigration Litigation 11 F.TRAVIS BUCHANAN, ESQ., & ASSOC., PLLC /s/ Matthew P. Seamon 12 701 East Bridger, Suite 540 Senior Litiga tion Counsel Las Vegas, NV 89101 P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station 13 Telephone: (702) 331-5478 Washington, D.C. 20044 14 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Attorneys for Federal Defendants 15 16 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 20 ____________________________________ 21 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 DATED: June 23, 2025 23 24 25 26 27 28