Jermaine Whitfield v. Levi Strauss & Co.

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: October 10, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-01205
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5

6 Jermaine Whitfield, Case No. 2:25-cv-01205-CDS-NJK 7 Plaintiff, Order 8 v. [Docket No. 18] 9 Levi Strauss & Co., 10 Defendant. 11 Pending before the Court is the parties’ stipulation to extend the deadline for Plaintiff to 12 file his FLSA motion for notice to the collective. Docket No. 18. 13 The Court set the deadline to file the FLSA motion for notice to the collective to October 14 8, 2025. Docket No. 17. In the instant stipulation, filed on October 9, 2025, the parties seek to 15 extend the deadline for Plaintiff to file the motion by one week. Docket No. 18. 16 A request to extend unexpired deadlines in the scheduling order must be premised on a 17 showing of good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); Local Rule 26-3. The good cause analysis turns 18 on whether the subject deadlines cannot reasonably be met despite the exercise of diligence. 19 Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). 20 When a request for relief from case management deadlines is made after the deadline has 21 expired, an additional showing of excusable neglect must be made. Branch Banking & Trust Co. 22 v. DMSI, LLC, 871 F.3d 751, 764-65 (9th Cir. 2017); see also Local Rule 26-3 (“A motion or 23 stipulation to extend a discovery deadline or to reopen discovery must include … [t]he reasons 24 why the deadline was not satisfied.”). The excusable neglect “determination is at bottom an 25 equitable one, taking account of all relevant circumstances surrounding the party’s omission.” 26 Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380, 395 (1993). Factors courts 27 may consider when evaluating excusable neglect include (1) the danger of prejudice to the non- 28 1}, moving party, (2) the length of the delay and its potential impact on judicial proceedings, (3) the 2|| reason for the delay and, (4) whether the movant acted in good faith. /d. 3 In the instant filing, the parties submit merely that “the requested extension is sought in good faith and not for the purposes of undue delay.” Docket No. 18. The filing fails to provide a 5] single reason for filing the request after the deadline and fails to address the applicable standard. 6 Nonetheless, in the interest of deciding this case on its merits, and as a one-time courtesy 7| to the parties, the Court GRANTS the stipulation and EXTENDS the deadline to file the motion 8|| for notice to the collective to October 15, 2025. Docket No. 18. The parties are ORDERED to 9] comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the local rules in all future filings to the 10] Court. 1] IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 Dated: October 10, 2025 UZ

14 Unite Sisiee Ae sistrate Judge gis g 15

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28