Hill v. Wynn Resorts Limited

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: January 12, 2022
• Docket: 2:21-cv-02113
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 JOSHUA A. SLIKER, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 12493 2 JACKSONLEWISP.C. 300 S. Fourth Street, Suite 900 3 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 Telephone: (702) 921-2460 4 Email: joshua.sliker@jacksonlewis.com 5 Attorneys for Defendant 6 Wynn Resorts, Limited 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 9 WEBB HILL, an individual, Case No. 2:21-cv-02113-GMN-DJA 10 Plaintiff, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO EXTEND 11 vs. DEADLINE TO ANSWER OR OTHERWISE RESPOND TO 12 WYNN RESORTS, LIMITED d/b/a Encore PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT Las Vegas, a Domestic Corporation, 13 Defendant. (FIRST REQUEST) 14 Defendant Wynn Resorts, Limited (“Defendant” or “WRL”) by and through its counsel, 15 the law firm of Jackson Lewis P.C., hereby brings the instant Motion to Extend the Deadline for 16 Defendant to Answer or Otherwise Respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint, to January 31, 2022. This 17 Motion is based on the following: 18 1. This is the first request for an extension of time for Defendant to file its answer or 19 otherwise respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1). 20 2. The undersigned counsel is working to ascertain whether the Summons and 21 Complaint have been properly served on Defendant and if so, the date of such service. Currently, 22 counsel has information indicating that service may have occurred on December 9, 2021 or on or 23 sometime after December 20, 2021. Thus, it is unclear if the deadline to answer or respond has 24 already passed or approaching imminently. As such, Defendant brings the instant motion for an 25 extension of time out of an abundance of caution. 26 3. The undersigned counsel attempted to contact Plaintiff’s counsel on December 30, 27 2021, January 3, 2022, and January 6, 2022 to discuss service and the deadline for responding to 1 Amended Complaint to correct this. Plaintiff sued Wynn Resorts, Limited, which is the parent 2 company of Plaintiff’s actual employer, Wynn Las Vegas, LLC. Defendant’s Counsel did so in an 3 attempt to expeditiously resolve the issue and avoid causing the parties to incur time and expenses 4 associated with motion practice to ensure the correct party was before the Court. See FRCP 1. 5 4. To date, Defendant’s Counsel has been unable to reach Plaintiff’s Counsel. 6 However, Defendant’s Counsel has contacted Plaintiff’s Counsel’s office and learned that counsel 7 is out of the country attending to a terminally ill relative and is having a difficult time accessing 8 emails. 9 5. Accordingly, in light of the uncertainty regarding the response deadline, the need 10 to give Plaintiff’s Counsel’s time to attend to personal matters and review and consider the 11 information regarding the correct defendant, and to avoid having the parties incur the time and 12 expense of motion practice and burden the Court with the same, Defendant submits that these 13 circumstances constitute good cause to extend the time for Defendant to answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint to January 31, 2022. 14 6. Under FRCP 6(b)(1), good cause is not a rigorous or high standard, and courts 15 have construed the test broadly. Ahanchion v. Kenan Pictures, 624 F.3d 1253 (9th Cir. 2010). 16 Rule 6(b) “[is] to be liberally construed to effectuate the general purpose of seeing that cases are 17 tried on the merits.” Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 459 (9th Cir. 1983); Wong v. Regents of the 18 Univ. of Calif., 410 F.3d 1052, 1060 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Of course, courts should not mindlessly 19 enforce deadlines.”). 20 7. Further, FRCP 6(b)(1)(B) provides that the Court may, for good cause, extend the 21 time “on motion made after the time has expired if the party failed to act because of excusable 22 neglect.” Pioneer Investment Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates Limited Partnership sets forth 23 a four-part balancing test for considering whether there has been “excusable neglect”: (1) the 24 danger of prejudice to the non-moving party; (2) the length of the delay and its potential impact 25 on judicial proceedings; (3) the reason for the delay, including whether it was within the 26 reasonable control of the movant; and (4) whether the movant acted in good faith. 507 US. 380, 27 395, 113 S. Ct. 1489, 123 L. Ed. 2d 74 (1993). While Pioneer involved the Federal Rule of 1 Bankruptcy Procedure 9006(b)(1), the Court made clear that the test would also apply to Fed. R. 2 Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B). Id. at 391-92, 395; see Lemoge v. United States, 587 F.3d 1188, 1192 (9th Cir. 3 2009). The weighing of Pioneer’s equitable factors is within the discretion of the district court. 4 Pincay v. Andrews, 389 F.3d 853, 860 (9th Cir. 2004). 5 8. Here, to the extent the deadline to answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff’s 6 Complaint has passed, excusable neglect exists sufficient to grant the extension. There is no 7 danger of prejudice to Plaintiff or impact on judicial proceedings because this matter is in its 8 infancy with the Complaint having been filed on November 29, 2021 and Summons issued on 9 December 1, 2021. ECF Nos. 1 and 6. Discovery has not opened. Further, given that Plaintiff has 10 sued the incorrect party, there is no prejudice in not having an answer or other response filed 11 within a certain time period by that incorrect party. The delay, at worst is thirteen days (if 12 December 9th is the correct date of proper service), possibly one day (if December 20th is the 13 correct date of proper service), or no delay if the date of proper service is after December 20th. As it is presently unclear which date proper service was in fact effectuated, Defendant would only be 14 speculating as to which date its answer or other response was due. In any event, Defendant has 15 acted in good faith regarding these circumstances as Defendant is (a) attempting to ensure 16 Plaintiff has sued the correct entity, (b) secure filing of an amended complaint naming the correct 17 entity, and (c) avoid causing the parties to incur the time and expense of motion practice if no 18 amended complaint was filed, and to otherwise burden the court with such motion, which would 19 be coupled with a motion to stay discovery pending decision, and if granted, would bring this case 20 to a standstill while the Court considered the merits of the motion to dismiss. In other words, 21 Defendant is attempting to resolve these issues in the most efficient, expeditious and cost- 22 effective manner possible in line with the requirements of FRCP 1. 23 9. Accordingly, Defendant respectfully requests the Court to enter an order extending 24 the time in which to answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint to January 31, 2022. 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 1 10.‘ Furthermore, this request for an extension of time to file Defendant’s answer o 2. || otherwise response to Plaintiff’s Complaint is made in good faith and not for the purpose of delay 3 || and Defendant does not intend to waive any claim, defense, or argument in making this Motion. 4 DATED this 11th day of January, 2022. 5 JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 6 /s/ Joshua A. Sliker JOSHUA A. SLIKER, ESQ. 7 Nevada Bar No. 12493 300 S. Fourth Street, Suite 900 8 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 9 Attorneys for Defendant 10 11 ORDER 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 14 1s DANIEL J. AMBREGTS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 DATED: January 12, 2022 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28