Levi v. Global Innovations Bank

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: August 4, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-01201
• Status: Unknown

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 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 12 || MARISOL LEVI, an individual, Case No. 2:25-cv-01201-GMN-NJK 13 Plaintiff, 14 VS. 15 GLOBAL INNOVATIONS BANK, An | STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR 16 || Equity Form Unknown; GLOBAL FIDELITY | EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE CORP., An Entity Form Unknown; GLOBAL | RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S 17 || FIDELITY BANK, An Entity Form Unknown; | COMPLAINT GLOBAL INNOVATIONS HOLDINGS, 18 INC., An Entity Form Unknown; GIBP NEVADA, An Entity Form Unknown; GIBP 19 , y > JAPAN, An Entity Form Unknown; GIBP (SECOND REQUEST) 20 || GERMANY, An Entity Form Unknown; GIB BILL PAY, An Entity Form Unknown, 21 || DAVID HALES, an individual; DOES 1-100 99 inclusive. 3 Defendants. 24 Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1) and LR IA 6-1, IA 6-2, and 7-1, Plaintiff Marisol Lev 25 □□ □□□ Defendant Global Innovations Bank, by and through their respective undersigned counsel 26 || hereby stipulate and agree to extend the time for Defendant to file its response to Plaintiff 27 ||Complaint (ECF No. 1-1) to August 15, 2025. This is the second request for extension of th 28 || 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 10 || or if a request is made, before the original time or its extension expires....” “Good cause” is not □ 11 || rigorous or high standard, and courts have construed the test broadly. Ahanchion v. Kenan Pictures 12 || 624 F.3d 1253 (9th Cir. 2010). Rule 6(b) “[is] to be liberally construed to effectuate the genera 13 || purpose of seeing that cases are tried on the merits.” Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 459 (9th Cit 14 || 1983); Wong v. Regents of the Univ. of Calif., 410 F.3d 1052, 1060 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Of course 15 || courts should not mindlessly enforce deadlines.”). Indeed, the “good cause” standard “primaril 16 || considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” Jn re W. States Wholesale Nat. Ga 17 || Antitrust Litig., 715 F.3d 716, 737 (9th Cir. 2013). In general, an application for extension of tim 18 |} under Rule 6(b)(1)(A) will be granted in the absence of bad faith. Ahanchion, 624 F.3d at 125' 19 || (quoting 4B CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT & ARTHUR R. MILLER, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDUR! 20 ||§ 1165 (3d ed. 2004)) (internal quotations omitted). Here, good cause warrants the stipulate 21 || extension. 22 With the breadth of the allegations in the Complaint, Defendant’s counsel still needs mor 23 ||time to investigate the allegations asserted in the Complaint, confer with Defendant’ 24 || representatives, and prepare Defendant’s response to the Complaint. A two-week extension shoul 25 || be sufficient for Defendant’s counsel to complete the investigation, confer with Defendant’ 26 || representatives regarding the investigation, and prepare a response to the Complaint. An □□□□□□□□□ 27 || to August 15, 2025, is therefore reasonable. 28 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 10 Attorneys for Plaintiff Attorneys for Defendant Marisol Levi Global Innovations Bank 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14

16 UNITE STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 DATED: August 4, 2025 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TEWIS PC.