Kangarlou v. Locklear

District Court, D. Nevada·Decided December 6, 2022·No. 2:18-cv-02286·Unknown

Opinion

11 PAUL A. ACKER, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 3670 22 THOMAS W. MARONEY, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 13913 33 8925 West Russell Road, Suite 220 Las Vegas, NV 89148 44 Telephone: (702) 997-3800 Facsimile (702) 997-3800 55 packer@rlattonrys.com tmaroney@rlattorneys.com 66 Attorneys for Defendants, 77 Lumbee Land Development, Inc., & Lumbee Tribe Holdings, Inc. 8 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 99 FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA 10 10 11 SAEID SAM KANGARLOU, CASE NO.: 2:18-CV-02286-JAD-BNW 11 12 Plaintiffs, JOINT MOTION TO EXTEND CASE 12 v. STAY 13 13 14 ALTON AL LOCKLEAR; LUMBEE LAND 14 DEVELOPMENT, INC.; LUMBEE TRIBE [SECOND REQUESTED STAY] 15 HOLDINGS, INC. 15 16 Defendants. 16 17 17 PLAINTIFF, SAIED KANGARLOU, Defendant, ALTON “AL” LOCKLEAR 18 18 (“Locklear”) and Defendants, LUMBEE LAND DEVELOPMENT, INC. and LUMBEE TRIBE 19 19 HOLDINGS, INC., by and through their respective counsel, hereby jointly move this Court to 20 20 extend the current discovery stay in this matter. The Parties have stipulated to extend the stay as 21 21 detailed in this Motion. 22 22 Pursuant to LR IA 6-1(b), the Parties aver that this is the second such discovery stay 23 23 requested in this matter. 24 2245 /// 2256 /// 2267 /// 11 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 22 I. 33 INTRODUCTION 44 This matter involves claims of personal injury by Saeid Sam Kangarlou (hereinafter 55 “Plaintiff”) from an alleged battery at The Mirage Hotel & Casino on or about December 5, 66 2016. Plaintiff alleges that Alton Locklear attacked him while they were playing at an 77 automated craps machine. Plaintiff alleges he sustained a variety of injuries which required 88 significant treatment. 9 9 On March 5, 2021, this Court entered a Scheduling Order setting a discovery deadline 10 10 for August 17, 2021. On September 10, 2022, this Court entered an Order extending the 11 11 discovery deadlines with discovery closing on February 14, 2022. Since that time, the Parties 12 12 have been diligently conducting discovery. 13 13 On February 4, 2022, Defendants filed a Joint Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement. 14 14 As a result of the pending settlement, the Parties did not complete discovery. On August 11, 15 15 2022, the Court issued a Report and Recommendations denying the Motion to Enforce. 16 16 Following this ruling, Plaintiff and Defendants both filed Motions requesting that this 17 17 Court stay this matter as Plaintiff was scheduled to undergo brain surgery. [ECF Nos. 87 and 18 18 89]. The Court granted the stay and ordered the Parties to follow-up on or before December 5, 19 19 2022 to advise whether a second stay would be necessary given Plaintiff’s health. As such, the 20 20 Parties file the instant motion to inform the Court that Plaintiff is still recovering from his health 21 21 issues and the stay in this matter should be extended until January 5, 2023. 22 22 II. 23 STATEMENT OF FACTS 23 24 1. On or about December 5, 2016, Plaintiff was a guest at The Mirage Hotel and 2245 Casino in Las Vegas, Nevada. See Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint [ECF No. 12]. At 2256 approximately 7:00 p.m., Plaintiff sat down at an automated craps machine located on the 2267 11 casino floor and began playing. Id. Plaintiff continued to play the craps machine with many 22 other guests for several hours. Id. 33 2. The Amended Complaint alleges that at approximately 11:00 p.m., Alton 44 Locklear, allegedly sat down and began playing craps at the same automated craps machine 55 where Plaintiff was playing for several hours. Id. While playing craps, Mr. Locklear allegedly 66 consumed multiple alcoholic beverages and became inebriated. Id. After allegedly losing 77 hundreds of dollars gambling, Mr. Locklear became aggressive with Plaintiff. Id. Mr. Locklear 88 allegedly blamed Plaintiff for his gambling losses. Id. at 4. Then, without warning, Mr. Locklear 99 allegedly punched Plaintiff in the face and knocked him to the ground. Id. Mr. Locklear then 11 00 allegedly jumped onto Plaintiff's back and continued striking Plaintiff in the head until another 11 11 patron stopped Mr. Locklear. Id. 12 3. Due to the alleged attack, Plaintiff alleges he sustained injuries “to his face, head, 12 13 hands, knee, back, tooth, ribs, stomach, and chest.” Id. Plaintiff also had complaints of blurred 13 14 vision. Id. Based upon these alleged injuries, emergency medical services transported Plaintiff 14 15 to Sunrise Hospital where he underwent treatment. Id. After doctors released him from the 15 16 hospital, Plaintiff continued to undergo treatment and met with several specialists due to his 16 17 alleged injuries. Id. 17 18 4. At the time of the alleged attack Mr. Locklear was allegedly representing the 18 19 Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina at the 2016 National American Indian Housing Counsel's 19 20 annual symposium at The Mirage. Id. at 3. Additionally, Mr. Locklear was also allegedly 20 21 representing Lumbee Land Development, Inc. Id. Finally, Lumbee Tribe Holdings, Inc. 21 22 allegedly sponsored Mr. Locklear's trip. Id. On or about December 22, 2021, Plaintiff contacted 22 23 Defendant’s counsel indicating that wanted to pursue settlement in this case. 23 24 5. On March 5, 2021, this Court entered a Scheduling Order setting a discovery 2245 deadline for August 17, 2021. [ECF No. 46]. The Court further stayed discovery in this matter 2256 until May 4, 2021, due to Plaintiffs refusal to participate in the Rule 26(f) Conference and 2267 11 ordered Plaintiff to file a notice with the Court stating whether he intends to continue 22 prosecuting his claims. Id. at 7. 33 6. On September 10, 2022, this Court entered an Order extending the discovery 44 deadlines with discovery closing on February 14, 2022. [ECF No. 81]. 55 7. On February 4, 2022, Defendants filed a Joint Motion to Enforce Settlement 66 Agreement (“Motion To Enforce”). [ECF No. 83]. On August 11, 2022, the Court issued a 77 Report and Recommendations denying the Motion to Enforce. [ECF No. 86]. 88 8. On August 25, 2022 the Parties filed Motions to Stay this matter as Plaintiff was 99 scheduled to undergo brain surgery. [ECF No. 87 and 89] 11 00 9. On September 6, 2022, this Court granted the Parties stay and informed the 11 11 Parties that if additional time was necessary for Plaintiff to recuperate that the Parties should 12 12 submit a request by no later than December 5, 2022. [ECF No. 90] 13 13 10. On October 6, 2022, Plaintiff underwent surgery for removal of a pituitary brain 14 14 tumor and a deviated septum. (See, correspondence from Plaintiff to Defendants dated 15 15 December 1, 2022, a true and correct copy is attached hereto as Exhibit “1”). 16 11. On December 5, 2022, because of additional health issues, Plaintiff requested 16 17 that Defendants agree to stay this matter for an additional thirty (30) days. (Id.). 17 18 III. 18 19 19 MOTION TO EXTEND STAY 20 “A district court has discretionary power to stay proceedings in its own court under 20 21 Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936).” Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 21 22 1098, 1109 (9th Cir. 2005). In deciding whether to grant a stay, the Ninth Circuit weighs “the 22 23 competing interests which will be affected[.]” Id. (quoting CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 23 24 268 (9th Cir. 1962)). These factors include: (1) “the possible damage which may result from the 2245 granting of a stay”; (2) “the hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in being required to go 2256 forward”; and (3) “the orderly course of justice measured in terms of the simplifying or 2267 11 complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law which could be expected to result from a 22 stay.” Id. 33 Damage would not result from this stay. This Court previously granted the stay for this 44 matter as Plaintiff was scheduled to undergo brain surgery.

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

Kangarlou v. Locklear, (D. Nev. 2022).

Kangarlou v. Locklear (Kangarlou v. Locklear) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Landis v. North American Co.
299 U.S. 248 (Supreme Court, 1936)
Cmax, Inc. v. Hall
300 F.2d 265 (Ninth Circuit, 1962)
Rosselló-González v. Calderón-Serra
398 F.3d 1 (First Circuit, 2005)