Hill v. Wynn Resorts Limited

District Court, D. Nevada·Decided April 4, 2022·No. 2:21-cv-02113·Unknown

Opinion

JOSHUA A. SLIKER, ESQ. 1 Nevada Bar No. 12493 HOLLY E. WALKER, ESQ. 2 Nevada Bar No. 14295 3 JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 300 S. Fourth Street, Suite 900 4 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 Telephone: (702) 921-2460 5 Email: joshua.sliker@jacksonlewis.com Email: holly.walker@jacksonlewis.com 6 Attorneys for Defendant 7 Wynn Las Vegas, LLC

10 WEBB HILL, an individual, Case No. 2:21-cv-02113-GMN-DJA

11 Plaintiff, DEFENDANT WYNN LAS VEGAS, 12 vs. LLC’S MOTION FOR AN

EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND 13 WYNN LAS VEGAS, LLC d/b/a Encore Las TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED Vegas, a Domestic Corporation, 14 COMPLAINT (ECF No. 16) Defendant, 15 (FIRST REQUEST)

16 17 Defendant Wynn Las Vegas, LLC d/b/a Encore Las Vegas (“Defendant”), by and through 18 its attorneys, Jackson Lewis P.C., hereby submits the instant Motion for an Extension of Time to 19 Respond to Plaintiff Webb Hill’s First Amended Complaint, to April 15, 2022. This Motion is based 20 on the following Memorandum of Points and Authorities, all pleadings and documents on file with 21 the Court, and any oral argument that the Court deems proper. 24 This is an employment termination case in which Plaintiff alleges discrimination and 25 retaliation claims pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., 26 the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., the Family and Medical 27 Leave Act of 1993, 29 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq., and state law. Plaintiff filed his Complaint on 1 November 29, 2021. ECF No. 1. On January 26, 2022, the parties stipulated to allow Plaintiff to 2 file a First Amended Complaint which dismissed Wynn Resorts, Limited, as a party, and named 3 Wynn Las Vegas, LLC as a defendant. ECF No. 13. The Court granted the stipulation on January 4 28, 2022. ECF No. 15. Defendant’s Counsel accepted service of the First Amended Complaint 5 (“FAC”) on behalf of Defendant on February 1, 2022. Defendant’s response to the FAC is currently 6 due on April 1, 2022. 7 On March 9, 2022, Plaintiff’s former counsel, Jenny Foley, filed a motion to withdraw as 8 counsel. ECF No. 24. The Court granted Ms. Foley’s motion on March 29, 2022. ECF No. 25. 9 Accordingly, Plaintiff is currently proceeding pro se and must notify the Court as to whether he 10 intends to proceed pro se or retain counsel by April 19, 2022. Id. 12 FRCP 6(b)(1) provides that when an act must be done within a specified time, the Court 13 “may, for good cause, extend the time . . . with or without motion or notice if the court acts, or if a 14 request is made, before the original time or its extension expires . . . .” “Good cause” is not a 15 rigorous or high standard, and courts have construed the test broadly. Ahanchion v. Kenan Pictures, 16 624 F.3d 1253 (9th Cir. 2010). Rule 6(b) “[is] to be liberally construed to effectuate the general 17 purpose of seeing that cases are tried on the merits.” Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 459 (9th Cir. 18 1983); Wong v. Regents of the Univ. of Calif., 410 F.3d 1052, 1060 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Of course, 19 courts should not mindlessly enforce deadlines.”). Indeed, the “good cause” standard “primarily 20 considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” In re W. States Wholesale Nat. Gas 21 Antitrust Litig., 715 F.3d 716, 737 (9th Cir. 2013). 22 Here, good cause exists to extend the deadline for Defendant to respond to the FAC because 23 Defendant requires additional time to review and finalize its response to the FAC. Specifically, 24 Defendant’s Counsel is travelling from March 29, 2022 to April 3, 2022 for the purpose of handling 25 depositions in another case, and the client representative for Defendant is currently out of the office 26 and will not return until approximately April 6, 2022. Accordingly, Defendant will need sufficient 27 time to review and finalize its response to the FAC. Further, Defendant brings the instant motion 1 || Ahanchian, 624 F.3d at 1259 (requests for extensions of time made before the applicable deadlin 2 || has passed should generally be granted in the absence of bad faith or prejudice to adverse party) 3 || Because Plaintiff's former counsel withdrew from this case and Plaintiff is currently proceedin; 4 || pro se, Defendant was unable to secure a stipulation for an extension of time and instead files thi 5 || motion out of an abundance of caution. 6 Accordingly, good cause exists to grant Defendant’s Motion and allow Defendant up to 7 ||including April 15, 2022 to respond to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. See Doyle v. Gittere 8 || No. 3:00-cv-00101-RCJ-WGC, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 224478, at *2 (D. Nev. Dec. 1, 2020 9 || (finding good cause for extending time for defendant to respond to motion where defendant’ 10 || counsel had obligations in other cases); Michaud v. Baker, 3:17-cv-00718-MMD-CBC, 2019 WI 11 || 1292679, *1 (D. Nev. March 20, 2019) (citing Canup v. Miss. Valley Barge Line Co., 31 F.R.D 12 || 282, 283 (D. Pa. 1962) (explaining that the “practicalities of life” (such as an attorney’s “conflictin; 13 || professional engagements” or personal commitments such as vacations, family activities, illnesses 14 || or death) often necessitate an enlargement of time to comply with a court deadline)). 15 Dated this lst day of April, 2022. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 16 /s/ Joshua A. Sliker 17 JOSHUA A. SLIKER, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 12493 18 HOLLY E. WALKER, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 14295 19 300 S. Fourth Street, Suite 900 20 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101

Attorneys for Defendant Wynn Las Vegas, LLC 22 23 For good cause appearing therein, IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 95 DATED: April 4, 2022 26 IP LX) /) aA IO O

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1 2 I HEREBY CERTIFY that I am an employee of Jackson Lewis P.C., and that on this 1st 3 day of April, 2022, I caused to be served via U.S. Mail, a true and correct copy of the above 4 foregoing DEFENDANT WYNN LAS VEGAS, LLC’S MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF 5 TIME TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (ECF No. 16) 6 properly addressed to the following: 7 Webb Hill 8 5129 Mountain View Drive Las Vegas, NV 89146 9 lasvegasgame@yahoo.com 10 Plaintiff in Proper Person 11 /s/ Kelley Chandler 12 Employee of Jackson Lewis P.C. 13

14 15 16

18 4891-7476-0730, v. 1 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

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

Hill v. Wynn Resorts Limited, (D. Nev. 2022).

Hill v. Wynn Resorts Limited (Hill v. Wynn Resorts Limited) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc.
624 F.3d 1253 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)
Learjet, Inc. v. Oneok, Inc.
715 F.3d 716 (Ninth Circuit, 2013)
State v. Gary Lee Wayerski
2019 WI 11 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 2019)