Liu v. Mandalay Bay LLC

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: January 8, 2024
• Docket: 2:23-cv-01435
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 4 Wei Liu, Case No. 2:23-cv-01435-CDS-VCF

5 Plaintiff Order Granting in Part Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend the Deadline 6 v.

7 Mandalay Bay, LLC d/b/a Mandalay Bay [ECF No. 15] Resort and Casino and MGM Resorts 8 International,

9 Defendants 10 11 Plaintiff Wei Liu filed this employment action on September 14, 2023 for wrongful 12 termination, discrimination, retaliation, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional 13 distress, breach of duties of good faith and fair dealing, and tortious discharge. ECF No. 1. Liu 14 filed an amended complaint the next day. ECF No. 2. 15 On October 10, 2023, defendants Mandalay Bay, LLC and MGM Resorts International 16 filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. ECF No. 8. Any opposition to the motion was 17 due on October 24, 2023. See ECF No. 8 (noting responses due 10/24/2023); Local Rule 7-2(b) 18 (“[T]he deadline to file and serve any points and authorities in response to the motion is 19 14 days after service of the motion.”). The October 24th deadline came and went; no opposition 20 was filed. 21 On October 17, 2023, the court issued a minute order directing defendants to provide 22 more information regarding a recently noticed interested party in order to evaluate whether the 23 court had a conflict on or before October 31, 2023.1 ECF No. 10. Recognizing that the deadline 24 for defendants to provide more information regarding the interested party fell after Lui’s 25 October 24, 2023 deadline to respond to the motion to dismiss the amended complaint, I sua 26 1 Defendants complied with my order. See Notice, ECF No. 11. 1 sponte issued a minute order extending the deadline to November 9, 2023. ECF No. 12. I 2 cautioned Liu that failure to respond to the motion to dismiss may result in dismissal of this 3 action. Id. 4 On November 8, 2023, a motion to substitute Liu’s attorney was filed (ECF No. 14), in 5 conjunction with a motion to extend time to respond to the motion to dismiss the amended 6 complaint (ECF No. 15). Liu sought a 2-week extension. Id. at 2. Defendants oppose the motion, 7 arguing it fails to meet the good cause standard. ECF No. 18. For the reasons set forth herein, I 8 grant the motion to extend in part. 9 I. Discussion 10 Liu moves for a two-week extension to respond to the motion to dismiss the amended 11 complaint, contending that there is good cause to extend the response deadline because counsel 12 was retained the same day the motion to extend was filed. ECF No. 15 at 1. Counsel also 13 represents that Liu has filed this motion for relief instead of a stipulation because, given the 14 impending deadline, there was not an opportunity to discuss extending the deadline with 15 opposing counsel. Id. at 2. Counsel further represents that, based upon information and belief, 16 defendants’ counsel was previously contacted by plaintiff’s counsel to set up a meet and confer, 17 but an immediate response was not received, thus further necessitating this motion. Id. 18 Defendants oppose the motion, representing that Liu’s prior counsel contacted them on 19 October 24, 2023, noting that she was considering filing a motion to amend the complaint to 20 address the issues raised in the motion to dismiss. ECF No. 18 at 2. No motion to amend nor 21 opposition to the motion to dismiss were filed. Defendants’ counsel notes that seven days after 22 the original response deadline, counsel for plaintiff contacted defendants to advise that she was 23 “working on a response” and considering having another attorney substitute in to represent 24 plaintiff. See id. (citing Email Correspondence, Defs.’ Ex. B, ECF No. 18 at 9–10). Before 25 defendants had an opportunity to respond, the court sua sponte extended the response deadline. 26 ECF No. 12. Defendants argue that Lui has been represented since the inception of this case and 1 that counsel was well aware of the deadlines to respond to the dismissal motion, but 2 nonetheless failed to respond in a timely manner, or to seek any other relief. ECF No. 18 at 3–4. 3 Given this information, defendants argue that Liu fails to establish good cause to extend the 4 response deadline. Id. 5 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1), when an act must be done within a 6 specified time, the court may extend the time for good cause if the request for an extension is 7 made before the original time or its extension expires. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A). The rule is 8 “to be liberally construed to effectuate the general purpose of seeing that cases are tried on the 9 merits.” Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1258–59 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Rodgers v. 10 Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 459 (9th Cir. 1983)). The Ninth Circuit has described the “good cause” 11 standard as “less rigorous than excusable neglect.” See Speiser, Krause & Madole P.C. v. Ortiz, 271 F.3d 12 884, 887 (9th Cir. 2001) (citation omitted). When evaluating whether the good cause standard 13 has been met, the court focuses on the diligence of the moving party. See Green Aire for Air 14 Conditioning W.L.L. v. Salem, 2020 WL 58279, at *3 (“Rule 16(b)’s good cause inquiry focuses 15 primarily on the movant’s diligence.”) (E.D. Cal. Jan. 6, 2020) (citing Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 16 232 F.3d 1271, 1295 (9th Cir. 2000)). 17 The court agrees with defendants that plaintiff’s prior counsel lacked diligence in 18 addressing the pending motion to dismiss, amongst other concerns. That lack of diligence could 19 have resulted in dismissal of this action. But unlike prior counsel, plaintiff’s new counsel did act 20 diligently in filing a motion to extend on the same say as his substitution of counsel, and one day 21 before the court’s extended deadline. Accordingly, the court grants plaintiff’s motion to extend 22 in part. Given that this motion and the motion to dismiss have both been pending for some time, 23 the court extends the response deadline by seven days only. 24 25 26 1 IL. Conclusion 2 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to extend the deadline to respond 3]| to the motion to dismiss [ECF No. 15] is GRANTED in part. Plaintiff has seven days from the day this order is docketed to respond to the motion. 5 DATED: January 8, 2024 /, } 6 LL ; tke 3 Ung State District Judge 9 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26