Kangarlou v. Locklear

District Court, D. Nevada·Decided January 12, 2023·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 [THIRD 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 third 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 underwent brain surgery and was recovering from brain 18 18 surgery. [ECF Nos. 87, 89, 91, and 92]. The Court granted the stay and ordered the Parties to 19 19 follow-up on or before January 5, 2023 to advise whether a third stay would be necessary given 20 20 Plaintiff’s health. [ECF Nos. 91 and 92] The Parties initially believed that discovery could 21 21 resume, but following a meet and confer regarding case status and discovery issues on January 22 9, 2023, the Parties agreed a stay was appropriate as Plaintiff recently learned he would be 22 23 undergoing another operation on February 7, 2023. As such, the Parties file the instant motion 23 24 to inform the Court that Plaintiff is still recovering from his health issues and that he will be 2245 undergoing another surgery, and thus, the stay in this matter should be extended until March 5, 2256 2023. 2267 11 II. 22 STATEMENT OF FACTS 33 1. On or about December 5, 2016, Plaintiff was a guest at The Mirage Hotel and 44 Casino in Las Vegas, Nevada. See Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint [ECF No. 12]. At 55 approximately 7:00 p.m., Plaintiff sat down at an automated craps machine located on the 66 casino floor and began playing. Id. Plaintiff continued to play the craps machine with many 77 other guests for several hours. Id. 88 2. The Amended Complaint alleges that at approximately 11:00 p.m., Alton 99 Locklear, allegedly sat down and began playing craps at the same automated craps machine 11 00 where Plaintiff was playing for several hours. Id. While playing craps, Mr. Locklear allegedly 11 11 consumed multiple alcoholic beverages and became inebriated. Id. After allegedly losing 11 22 hundreds of dollars gambling, Mr. Locklear became aggressive with Plaintiff. Id. Mr. Locklear 13 13 allegedly blamed Plaintiff for his gambling losses. Id. at 4. Then, without warning, Mr. Locklear 14 allegedly punched Plaintiff in the face and knocked him to the ground. Id. Mr. Locklear then 14 15 allegedly jumped onto Plaintiff's back and continued striking Plaintiff in the head until another 15 16 patron stopped Mr. Locklear. Id. 16 17 3. Due to the alleged attack, Plaintiff alleges he sustained injuries “to his face, head, 17 18 hands, knee, back, tooth, ribs, stomach, and chest.” Id. Plaintiff also had complaints of blurred 18 19 vision. Id. Based upon these alleged injuries, emergency medical services transported Plaintiff 19 20 to Sunrise Hospital where he underwent treatment. Id. After doctors released him from the 20 21 hospital, Plaintiff continued to undergo treatment and met with several specialists due to his 21 22 alleged injuries. Id. 22 23 4. At the time of the alleged attack Mr. Locklear was allegedly representing the 23 24 Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina at the 2016 National American Indian Housing Counsel's 2245 annual symposium at The Mirage. Id. at 3. Additionally, Mr. Locklear was also allegedly 2256 representing Lumbee Land Development, Inc. Id. Finally, Lumbee Tribe Holdings, Inc. 2267 11 allegedly sponsored Mr. Locklear's trip. Id. On or about December 22, 2021, Plaintiff contacted 22 Defendant’s counsel indicating that wanted to pursue settlement in this case. 33 5. On March 5, 2021, this Court entered a Scheduling Order setting a discovery 44 deadline for August 17, 2021. [ECF No. 46]. The Court further stayed discovery in this matter 55 until May 4, 2021, due to Plaintiffs refusal to participate in the Rule 26(f) Conference and 66 ordered Plaintiff to file a notice with the Court stating whether he intends to continue 77 prosecuting his claims. Id. at 7. 8 8 6. On September 10, 2022, this Court entered an Order extending the discovery 9 9 deadlines with discovery closing on February 14, 2022. [ECF No. 81]. 10 10 7. On February 4, 2022, Defendants filed a Joint Motion to Enforce Settlement 11 11 Agreement (“Motion To Enforce”). [ECF No. 83]. On August 11, 2022, the Court issued a 12 12 Report and Recommendations denying the Motion to Enforce. [ECF No. 86]. 13 13 8. On August 25, 2022 the Parties filed Motions to Stay this matter as Plaintiff was 14 14 scheduled to undergo brain surgery. [ECF No. 87 and 89] 15 15 9. On September 6, 2022, this Court granted the Parties stay and informed the 16 16 Parties that if additional time was necessary for Plaintiff to recuperate that the Parties should 17 17 submit a request by no later than December 5, 2022. [ECF No. 90] 18 18 10. On October 6, 2022, Plaintiff underwent surgery for removal of a pituitary brain 19 19 tumor and a deviated septum. (See, correspondence from Plaintiff to Defendants dated 20 20 December 1, 2022, a true and correct copy is attached hereto as Exhibit “1”). 21 11. On December 5, 2022, because of additional health issues, Plaintiff requested 21 22 that Defendants agree to stay this matter for an additional thirty (30) days. (Id.). 22 23 12. On December 6, 2022, the Court granted the Parties Joint Motion to Extend Stay. 23 24 [ECF No. 92] 2245 13. On January 3, 2023 and January 4, 2023, the Parties exchanged communications 2256 regarding the stay and possible continuation of discovery. (See, correspondence from Plaintiff to 2267 11 14. To address discovery issues that may arise during the course of the reopened 22 discovery the Parties engaged in a meet and confer on January 9, 2023. (See, correspondence 33 from Plaintiff to Defendants regarding issues addressed during January 9, 2023 meet and 44 confer, a true and correct copy is attached hereto as Exhibit “3”). 55 15.

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

Kangarlou v. Locklear, (D. Nev. 2023).

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)