Harper v. Southwest Airline Co.

D. Nevada

Harper v. Southwest Airline Co.

DecidedMarch 3, 2025

Docket2:24-cv-01799

StatusUnknown

This text of Harper v. Southwest Airline Co. (Harper v. Southwest Airline Co.) 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.

Bluebook

Harper v. Southwest Airline Co., (D. Nev. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

Jason Kuller, NV Bar No. 12244 1 || Rachel Mariner, NV Bar No. 16728 RAFI & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 2 || 1120 N. Town Center Dr., Suite 130 Las Vegas, Nevada 89144 3 || Telephone: 725.245.6056 Facsimile: 725.220.1802 4 || jason@rafiilaw.com rachel@rafilaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiff 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 DISTRICT OF NEVADA JALA HARPER, on behalf of herself and all Case No.: 2:24-cv-01799-APG-DJA 5 10 || others similarly situated, Plaintiff,

y JOINT STIPULATION TO STAY ' DEADLINE TO SUBMIT PARTIES’ 2 13 || SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO. and DOES 1- | PROPOSED DISCOVERY PLAN AND 50, inclusive, SCHEDULING ORDER (INCLUDING 14 ALL ASSOCIATED CASE DEADLINES) Defendants. AND TO EXTEND BRIEFING 15 SCHEDULE ON PENDING MOTIONS FOR SANCTIONS [ECF 26] AND TO 16 DISMISS [ECF 27] 17 . (First Request)

19 20 . . Plaintiff JALA HARPER, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated, and Defendant 21 SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO. (“Southwest”) (collectively “Parties”), by and through their 22 undersigned counsel, hereby agree and stipulate to stay the deadline to submit a proposed discovery 23 plan and scheduling order (“DPSO”), including all associated case deadlines, until the disposition 24 of Defendant’s pending Motion for Sanctions [ECF 26] (“Sanctions Motion’) and pending Motion 25 to Dismiss and Motion to Strike [ECF 27] (“Dismiss Motion”) (collectively “Motions”), and to 26 extend the briefing schedule on the Motions as follows: Plaintiff shall have until next Tuesday, 27 March 4, 2025, to file a response to the Sanctions Motion and until the following Tuesday, March 28

1 || 11,2025, to file a response to the Dismiss Motion, and Defendant shall have until March 11, 2025, 2 || and March 18, 2025, respectively, to file replies in support of the Motions. This stipulation 1s 3 || submitted and based upon the following. 4 1. This is the Parties’ first request for a stay of the DPSO and associated case deadlines, 5 || and to extend the briefing schedule on the Motions. 6 2. On February 12, 2025, Defendant filed a Motion for Sanctions [ECF 26]. 7 3. Two days later, on February 14, 2025, the Parties conducted their conference on a 8 || proposed DPSO pursuant to FRCP 26(f) and LR 26-1(a), and a draft of the proposed DPSO was 9 || prepared and circulated. = 10 4. Four days later, on February 18, 2025, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss and 11 || Motion to Strike [ECF 27]. 12 5. During their conference on the proposed DPSO, the Parties discussed the possibility 13 || of avoiding the time and expense of imminent discovery deadlines, including the service of initial 8 14 || disclosures due to be made this Friday, February 28, 2025. The Parties also discussed the possibility : 15 |] of tolling the statute of limitations on Plaintiffs claims, including the claims of putative class and 16 || collective member (collectively, “Putative Members”), during pendency of any discovery stay. 6. The Parties’ DPSO is due to be filed tomorrow on February 26, 2025, and during 18 || further discussions on their proposed DPSO, the Parties agreed on the stipulated terms expressed 19 || herein. 20 7. It is well recognized that “[c]ourts have broad discretion in managing their dockets.” 21 || Byars v. Western Best, LLC, No. 2:19-CV-1690-JCM-DJA, 2020 WL 8674195, at *1 (D. Nev. Jul. 22 || 6, 2020), citing Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706-07 (1997). In exercising such discretion, “courts 23 || are guided by the goals of securing the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of actions.” J/d.; see 24 || also Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. The Parties agree that good cause exists to continue to stay the deadline for 25 || submission of a proposed DPSO and all associated case deadlines while Defendant’s Motion to 26 || Dismiss remains pending, which may be dispositive of Plaintiff's claims or require further 27 || amendment of those claims. See Schrader v. Wynn Las Vegas, LLC, No. 2:19-cv-02159-JCM- 28 || BNW, 2021 WL 4810324, at *4 (D. Nev. Oct. 14, 2021); Aristocrat Techs., Inc. v. Light & Wonder,

1 || Jne., No. 2:24-CV-00382-GMN-MDC, 2024 WL 2302151, at *1 (D. Nev. May 21, 2024). 2 8. Submission of a proposed DPSO to commence discovery before the pleadings are 3 || resolved would cause unnecessary expense to the Parties, particularly because this is a putative class 4||and collective action and may clog the Court’s docket with potentially unnecessary discovery 5 || disputes or motion practice, including a motion for condition certification of Plaintiffs collective 6 || action claims. Consistent with the foregoing, the Parties agree they will be in a better position to 7 || discuss the necessary scope of discovery that will be needed, if any, and the amount of time 8 || necessary for both sides to gather evidence, once Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss 1s resolved. 9 9. To facilitate and effectuate a stay of the proposed DPSO and associated case = 10 || deadlines, the Parties further agree that it is in their mutual interests to toll any applicable statute of 11 |} limitations for all claims and causes of action asserted in this action on behalf Plaintiff and any or 12 |} all Putative Members from the date of filing of this Joint Stipulation until the earlier of: (a) the date 13 |} on which the Court rules on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss or (b) the date on which the Parties may 8 14 || modify or terminate the terms of this tolling agreement by a separate writing. : 15 10. Asa result of the Parties’ agreement, the only pending case deadlines are those on 16 || Defendant’s Sanctions Motion and Dismiss Motion. Plaintiff’s response to the Sanctions Motion is || due to be filed today, February 26, 2025, and her response to the Dismiss Motion is due to be filed 18 || next Tuesday, March 4, 2025. In connection and consideration of the Parties’ negotiations and the 19 |} memorialization of their stipulated agreement, the Parties have also agreed to stipulate to an 20 || extension of the current briefing schedule deadlines for no more than a week. 21 11. For all these reasons, the Parties believe it is in the interest of judicial efficiency: (1) 22 || to submit their proposed DPSO after the Court rules on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss; and (2) to 23 || extend the current briefing schedule on the pending Motions for no more than a week. 24 12. This request is made in good faith and not for the purpose of delay. 25 THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between Plaintiff and Defendant as 26 || follows: 27 |) 1. The deadline for the Parties to submit a proposed DPSO and all associated case deadlines 28 shall be stayed until after the Court rules on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [ECF 27];

1 |} 2. The claims of Plaintiff and each of the Putative Members shall be tolled as hereinabove 2 provided; and 3 || 3. Plaintiff shall have until next Tuesday, March 4, 2025, to file a response to the Sanctions 4 Motion and until the following Tuesday, March 11, 2025, to file a response to the Dismiss 5 Motion, and Defendant shall have until March 11, 2025, and March 18, 2025, respectively, 6 to file replies in support of the Motions. Dated this 26th day of February, 2025. Dated this 26th day of February, 2025. 9 FORD HARRISON LLP RAFI & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 5 10|| s/David Cheng (w/permission) /s/ Jason Kuller David L. Cheng, Esq. Jason Kuller, Esq. 11 California Bar No. 240926 Of Counsel 350 South Grand Avenue Suite 2300 Nevada Bar No. 12244 Los Angeles, California 90071 1120 N. Town Center Dr., Ste. 130 Z 13 Las Vegas, Nevada 89144 HARTWELL THALACKER, LTD. Doreen Spears Hartwell, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiff 4 Nevada Bar No. 7525 JALA HARPER 15 11920 Southern Highlands Pkwy. Ste.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Jason Kuller, NV Bar No. 12244 1 || Rachel Mariner, NV Bar No. 16728 RAFI & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 2 || 1120 N. Town Center Dr., Suite 130 Las Vegas, Nevada 89144 3 || Telephone: 725.245.6056 Facsimile: 725.220.1802 4 || jason@rafiilaw.com rachel@rafilaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiff 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 DISTRICT OF NEVADA JALA HARPER, on behalf of herself and all Case No.: 2:24-cv-01799-APG-DJA 5 10 || others similarly situated, Plaintiff,

y JOINT STIPULATION TO STAY ' DEADLINE TO SUBMIT PARTIES’ 2 13 || SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO. and DOES 1- | PROPOSED DISCOVERY PLAN AND 50, inclusive, SCHEDULING ORDER (INCLUDING 14 ALL ASSOCIATED CASE DEADLINES) Defendants. AND TO EXTEND BRIEFING 15 SCHEDULE ON PENDING MOTIONS FOR SANCTIONS [ECF 26] AND TO 16 DISMISS [ECF 27] 17 . (First Request)

19 20 . . Plaintiff JALA HARPER, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated, and Defendant 21 SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO. (“Southwest”) (collectively “Parties”), by and through their 22 undersigned counsel, hereby agree and stipulate to stay the deadline to submit a proposed discovery 23 plan and scheduling order (“DPSO”), including all associated case deadlines, until the disposition 24 of Defendant’s pending Motion for Sanctions [ECF 26] (“Sanctions Motion’) and pending Motion 25 to Dismiss and Motion to Strike [ECF 27] (“Dismiss Motion”) (collectively “Motions”), and to 26 extend the briefing schedule on the Motions as follows: Plaintiff shall have until next Tuesday, 27 March 4, 2025, to file a response to the Sanctions Motion and until the following Tuesday, March 28

1 || 11,2025, to file a response to the Dismiss Motion, and Defendant shall have until March 11, 2025, 2 || and March 18, 2025, respectively, to file replies in support of the Motions. This stipulation 1s 3 || submitted and based upon the following. 4 1. This is the Parties’ first request for a stay of the DPSO and associated case deadlines, 5 || and to extend the briefing schedule on the Motions. 6 2. On February 12, 2025, Defendant filed a Motion for Sanctions [ECF 26]. 7 3. Two days later, on February 14, 2025, the Parties conducted their conference on a 8 || proposed DPSO pursuant to FRCP 26(f) and LR 26-1(a), and a draft of the proposed DPSO was 9 || prepared and circulated. = 10 4. Four days later, on February 18, 2025, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss and 11 || Motion to Strike [ECF 27]. 12 5. During their conference on the proposed DPSO, the Parties discussed the possibility 13 || of avoiding the time and expense of imminent discovery deadlines, including the service of initial 8 14 || disclosures due to be made this Friday, February 28, 2025. The Parties also discussed the possibility : 15 |] of tolling the statute of limitations on Plaintiffs claims, including the claims of putative class and 16 || collective member (collectively, “Putative Members”), during pendency of any discovery stay. 6. The Parties’ DPSO is due to be filed tomorrow on February 26, 2025, and during 18 || further discussions on their proposed DPSO, the Parties agreed on the stipulated terms expressed 19 || herein. 20 7. It is well recognized that “[c]ourts have broad discretion in managing their dockets.” 21 || Byars v. Western Best, LLC, No. 2:19-CV-1690-JCM-DJA, 2020 WL 8674195, at *1 (D. Nev. Jul. 22 || 6, 2020), citing Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706-07 (1997). In exercising such discretion, “courts 23 || are guided by the goals of securing the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of actions.” J/d.; see 24 || also Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. The Parties agree that good cause exists to continue to stay the deadline for 25 || submission of a proposed DPSO and all associated case deadlines while Defendant’s Motion to 26 || Dismiss remains pending, which may be dispositive of Plaintiff's claims or require further 27 || amendment of those claims. See Schrader v. Wynn Las Vegas, LLC, No. 2:19-cv-02159-JCM- 28 || BNW, 2021 WL 4810324, at *4 (D. Nev. Oct. 14, 2021); Aristocrat Techs., Inc. v. Light & Wonder,

1 || Jne., No. 2:24-CV-00382-GMN-MDC, 2024 WL 2302151, at *1 (D. Nev. May 21, 2024). 2 8. Submission of a proposed DPSO to commence discovery before the pleadings are 3 || resolved would cause unnecessary expense to the Parties, particularly because this is a putative class 4||and collective action and may clog the Court’s docket with potentially unnecessary discovery 5 || disputes or motion practice, including a motion for condition certification of Plaintiffs collective 6 || action claims. Consistent with the foregoing, the Parties agree they will be in a better position to 7 || discuss the necessary scope of discovery that will be needed, if any, and the amount of time 8 || necessary for both sides to gather evidence, once Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss 1s resolved. 9 9. To facilitate and effectuate a stay of the proposed DPSO and associated case = 10 || deadlines, the Parties further agree that it is in their mutual interests to toll any applicable statute of 11 |} limitations for all claims and causes of action asserted in this action on behalf Plaintiff and any or 12 |} all Putative Members from the date of filing of this Joint Stipulation until the earlier of: (a) the date 13 |} on which the Court rules on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss or (b) the date on which the Parties may 8 14 || modify or terminate the terms of this tolling agreement by a separate writing. : 15 10. Asa result of the Parties’ agreement, the only pending case deadlines are those on 16 || Defendant’s Sanctions Motion and Dismiss Motion. Plaintiff’s response to the Sanctions Motion is || due to be filed today, February 26, 2025, and her response to the Dismiss Motion is due to be filed 18 || next Tuesday, March 4, 2025. In connection and consideration of the Parties’ negotiations and the 19 |} memorialization of their stipulated agreement, the Parties have also agreed to stipulate to an 20 || extension of the current briefing schedule deadlines for no more than a week. 21 11. For all these reasons, the Parties believe it is in the interest of judicial efficiency: (1) 22 || to submit their proposed DPSO after the Court rules on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss; and (2) to 23 || extend the current briefing schedule on the pending Motions for no more than a week. 24 12. This request is made in good faith and not for the purpose of delay. 25 THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between Plaintiff and Defendant as 26 || follows: 27 |) 1. The deadline for the Parties to submit a proposed DPSO and all associated case deadlines 28 shall be stayed until after the Court rules on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [ECF 27];

1 |} 2. The claims of Plaintiff and each of the Putative Members shall be tolled as hereinabove 2 provided; and 3 || 3. Plaintiff shall have until next Tuesday, March 4, 2025, to file a response to the Sanctions 4 Motion and until the following Tuesday, March 11, 2025, to file a response to the Dismiss 5 Motion, and Defendant shall have until March 11, 2025, and March 18, 2025, respectively, 6 to file replies in support of the Motions. Dated this 26th day of February, 2025. Dated this 26th day of February, 2025. 9 FORD HARRISON LLP RAFI & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 5 10|| s/David Cheng (w/permission) /s/ Jason Kuller David L. Cheng, Esq. Jason Kuller, Esq. 11 California Bar No. 240926 Of Counsel 350 South Grand Avenue Suite 2300 Nevada Bar No. 12244 Los Angeles, California 90071 1120 N. Town Center Dr., Ste. 130 Z 13 Las Vegas, Nevada 89144 HARTWELL THALACKER, LTD. Doreen Spears Hartwell, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiff 4 Nevada Bar No. 7525 JALA HARPER 15 11920 Southern Highlands Pkwy. Ste. 201 16 Las Vegas, Nevada 89141 || Attorneys for Defendant SOUTHWEST AIRLINES INC. IT IS SO ORDERED. OND 20 AY DANIEL J. ALBREGTS 21 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 DATED: 3/3/2025 23 24 25 26 27 28

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the date shown file stamped above, I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing pleading on all registered parties with the Court’s

electronic filing system.

/s/ Jason Kuller Jason Kuller Of Counsel RAFII & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 1120 N. Town Center Dr., Suite 130 Las Vegas, Nevada 89144 Tel: (725) 245-6056 Fax: (725) 220-1802 jason@rafiilaw.com

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Harper v. Southwest Airline Co., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harper-v-southwest-airline-co-nvd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack