Malloy v. Amazon.Com Services, LLC

Opinion

BRADLEY J. HAMBURGER (admitted pro hac vice) MEGAN M. COONEY (admitted pro hac vice) GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197 Telephone: 213.229.7000 Email: bhamburger@gibsondunn.com Email: mcooney@gibsondunn.com ANDREW G.I. KILBERG \| (admitted pro hac vice) GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036-5306 Telephone: 202.955.8500 Email: akilberg@gibsondunn.com MONTGOMERY Y. PAEK Bar No. 10176 AMY L. THOMPSON Bar No. 11907 LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 3960 Howard Hughes Parkway Suite 300 Las Vegas, NV 89169-5937 Telephone: 702.862.8800 ) Email: mpaek@littler.com Email: athompson@littler.com Attorneys for Defendant AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC DWIGHT MALLOY, on behalf of himself Case No. 2:22-cv-00286-ART-MDC and all others similarly situated; oe STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] Plaintiffs, ORDER TO STAY DEADLINE TO 2211. SUBMIT A PROPOSED DISCOVERY 73 PLAN AND SCHEDULING ORDER AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC, PENDING THE NEVADA SUPREME COURT’S ACCEPTANCE OF AND Defendant. DECISION REGARDING THE QUESTION CERTIFIED BY THIS COURT (ECF NO. 56) Plaintiff DWIGHT MALLOY (‘Plaintiff’) and Defendant AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC (‘Amazon’) (“Defendant”), by and through their counsel of record, stipulate to stay the deadline to

submit a proposed discovery plan and scheduling order pending the Nevada Court’s acceptance of and decision regarding the question certified to it by this Court on July 1, 2024. ECF No. 56. On March 2, 2023, the Court denied Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint, which sought to dismiss the entirety of Plaintiffs claims. ECF Nos. 22; 30. Thereafter, on April 3, 2023, Defendant filed its Motion for Certification of Interlocutory Appeal Under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) or, in the Alternative, Motion to Certify Questions to the Nevada Supreme Court (the “Certification Motion”). ECF No. 34. The Court granted the Certification Motion on July 1, 2024, certifying the following question of law to the Nevada Supreme Court: “Does Nevada law incorporate the PPA?” ECF No. 56 at 5. The Court found that the certified question “is dispositive on Plaintiff's claims, as it likely determines whether time spent in Covid-19 screenings is compensable ‘work’ in Nevada.” □□□ ] at6. It is well recognized that “[c]ourts have broad discretion in managing their dockets.” Byars v. Western Best, LLC, No. 2:19-CV-1690-JCM-DJA, 2020 WL 8674195, at *1 (D. Nev. Jul. 6, 2020), ] citing Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706-07 (1997). In exercising such discretion, “courts are guided by the goals of securing the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of actions.” /d.; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. The parties agree that good cause exists to continue to stay the deadline for submission of a Stipulated Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order this case given the pending Order certifying a question of law to the Nevada Supreme Court that “is dispositive” on Plaintiff's claims. Schrader v. Wynn Las Vegas, LLC, No. 2:19-cv-02159-JCM-BNW, 2021 WL 4810324, at *4 (D. Nev. Oct. 14, 2021); Aristocrat Techs., Inc. v. Light & Wonder, Inc., No. 2:24-CV-00382-GMN-MDC, 2024 WL } 2302151, at *1 (D. Nev. May 21, 2024). Submission of a Stipulated Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order to commence discovery pending the Nevada Supreme Court’s acceptance of and decision regarding the certified question (which requires no discovery) would cause unnecessary expense to the parties, particularly because this is a putative class action, and potentially clog the Court’s docket with unnecessary discovery disputes and/or motion practice. Consistent with the foregoing, the parties agree they will be in a better position to discuss the necessary scope of discovery that will be needed, if any, and the amount of time necessary for both sides to gather evidence, once the Nevada Supreme Court determines whether to accept the certified question and, if it does accept certification, its 2.

decision regarding that question. For these reasons, the parties believe it is in the interest of judicial efficiency and consistent with Rule 1 and Schrader to submit a Stipulated Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order after the Nevada Supreme Court returns the case to this Court. THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between Plaintiff and Defendant as follows: 1. The deadline for the parties to submit a proposed discovery plan and scheduling order shall be stayed pending the Nevada Supreme Court’s acceptance of and decision regarding the certified question; and 2. Within fifteen (15) days of the return of the case to this Court from the Nevad Supreme Court, the parties will (a) meet and confer about appropriate timing for submission of proposed Stipulated Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order and (b) submit an additional stipulatio }| outlining their proposal for timing of the Stipulated Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order. 1S Dated: September 3, 2024 Dated: September 3, 2024 Respectfully submitted, Respectfully submitted, /s/ Don J. Foty /s/ Amy L. Thompson DON J. FOTY MONTGOMERY Y. PAEK 1g || HODGES & FOTY, LLP AMY L. THOMPSON LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. ESTHER C. RODRIGUEZ RODRIGUEZ LAW OFFICES, P.C. BRADLEY J. HAMBURGER Attorneys for Plaintiff ANDREW G.I. KILBERG DWIGHT MALLOY GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP Attorneys for Defendant AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC IT IS SO ORDERED. SG

Hon. Maximilia fo DA ouvillier III UNITED STATE AGISTRATE JUDGE Dated: 9/5/24 3.