Levi v. Global Innovations Bank

Opinion

1 JOSHUA A. SLIKER, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 12493 2 I-CHE LAL, ESQ. 3 Nevada Bar No. 12247 JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 4 300 S. Fourth Street, Ste. 900 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 5 Telephone: (702) 921-2460 Facsimile: (702) 921-2461 6 E-Mail: joshua. □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ 7 E-Mail: i-che.lai@jacksonlewis.com g || Attorneys for Defendant Global Innovations Bank MARISOL LEVI, an individual, Case No. 2:25-cv-01201-GMN-NJK Plaintiff, VS. GLOBAL INNOVATIONS BANK, An | STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR || Equity Form Unknown; GLOBAL FIDELITY | EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE CORP., An Entity Form Unknown; GLOBAL | RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S || FIDELITY BANK, An Entity Form Unknown; | COMPLAINT GLOBAL INNOVATIONS HOLDINGS, INC., An Entity Form Unknown; GIBP NEVADA, An Entity Form Unknown; GIBP , y > JAPAN, An Entity Form Unknown; GIBP (SECOND REQUEST) GERMANY, An Entity Form Unknown; GIB BILL PAY, An Entity Form Unknown, DAVID HALES, an individual; DOES 1-100 99 inclusive. Defendants. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1) and LR IA 6-1, IA 6-2, and 7-1, Plaintiff Marisol Lev □□ □□□ Defendant Global Innovations Bank, by and through their respective undersigned counsel hereby stipulate and agree to extend the time for Defendant to file its response to Plaintiff Complaint (ECF No. 1-1) to August 15, 2025. This is the second request for extension of th deadline to respond to Plaintiff's Complaint. TEWIS PC.

1 The Complaint was filed on February 12, 2025, in the Eighth Judicial District Court o 2 Nevada. (ECF No. 1-1.) On June 2, 2025, Plaintiff purported to serve the state court-issue 3 Summons and Complaint upon an employee of Defendant in Kiester, Minnesota. (ECF No. 1, p. 2 4 2.) To date, upon information and belief, no other defendant in this case has been served with th: 5 Summons and Complaint. On July 2, 2025, Defendant removed the case pursuant to federa 6 question jurisdiction to this Court. (ECF No. 1.) Pursuant to this Court’s July 10, 2025, order, (EC] 7 No. 8), Defendant’s response to Plaintiff’s Complaint is currently due on August 1, 2025. 8 Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1) provides that when an act must be done within a specified time, th 9 Court “may, for good cause, extend the time . . . with or without motion or notice if the court acts or if a request is made, before the original time or its extension expires....” “Good cause” is not □ rigorous or high standard, and courts have construed the test broadly. Ahanchion v. Kenan Pictures 624 F.3d 1253 (9th Cir. 2010). Rule 6(b) “[is] to be liberally construed to effectuate the genera purpose of seeing that cases are tried on the merits.” Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 459 (9th Cit 1983); Wong v. Regents of the Univ. of Calif., 410 F.3d 1052, 1060 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Of course courts should not mindlessly enforce deadlines.”). Indeed, the “good cause” standard “primaril considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” Jn re W. States Wholesale Nat. Ga Antitrust Litig., 715 F.3d 716, 737 (9th Cir. 2013). In general, an application for extension of tim } under Rule 6(b)(1)(A) will be granted in the absence of bad faith. Ahanchion, 624 F.3d at 125' (quoting 4B CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT & ARTHUR R. MILLER, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDUR! § 1165 (3d ed. 2004)) (internal quotations omitted). Here, good cause warrants the stipulate extension. With the breadth of the allegations in the Complaint, Defendant’s counsel still needs mor time to investigate the allegations asserted in the Complaint, confer with Defendant’ representatives, and prepare Defendant’s response to the Complaint. A two-week extension shoul be sufficient for Defendant’s counsel to complete the investigation, confer with Defendant’ representatives regarding the investigation, and prepare a response to the Complaint. An □□□□□□□□□ to August 15, 2025, is therefore reasonable. TEWIS PC.

1 In stipulating to the extension, the parties are not waiving, relinquishing, or □□□□□□□□□ 2 impairing any claim, defense, argument, or other right they may have. See Szanto v. Marin 3 Marketplace 1, LLC, No. 3:11-cv-00394-RCJ-VPC, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 168028, at *10 (D 4 Nev. Nov. 26, 2013). 5 THE FAUX LAW GROUP JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 6 /s/ Kurt C. Faux /s/ I-Che Lai 7 Kurt C. Faux, Esq. Joshua A. Sliker, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 3407 Nevada Bar No. 12493 g || Willi H. Siepmann, Esq. I-Che Lai, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 2478 Nevada Bar No. 12247 9 } 2625 North Green Valley Parkway, Suite 100 300 South Fourth Street, Suite 900 Henderson, Nevada 89014 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 Attorneys for Plaintiff Attorneys for Defendant Marisol Levi Global Innovations Bank IT IS SO ORDERED.

UNITE STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DATED: August 4, 2025 TEWIS PC.