Mendoza v. U.S. Turf, LLC

CourtDistrict Court, D. Nevada
DecidedFebruary 7, 2025
Docket2:24-cv-01363
StatusUnknown

This text of Mendoza v. U.S. Turf, LLC (Mendoza v. U.S. Turf, LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Nevada primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Mendoza v. U.S. Turf, LLC, (D. Nev. 2025).

Opinion

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5

6 CESAR MENDOZA, et al., Case No.: 2:24-cv-01363-JAD-NJK 7 Plaintiffs, Order 8 v. [Docket No. 26] 9 U.S. TURF, LLC,

10 Defendant. 11 Pending before the Court is the parties’ stipulation to extend case management deadlines 12 by 90 days. Docket No. 15. 13 A request to extend unexpired deadlines in the scheduling order must be premised on a 14 showing of good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); Local Rule 26-3. The good cause analysis turns 15 on whether the subject deadlines cannot reasonably be met despite the exercise of diligence. 16 Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992).1 17 Here, the parties have failed to demonstrate diligence. The Court issued the scheduling 18 order in this case on September 12, 2024. Docket No. 13. Nonetheless, the parties waited until 19 the end of December to conduct any discovery at all, and have conducted little affirmative 20 discovery. Docket No. 26 at 3. 21 Additionally, the instant stipulation fails to meet the requirements of the local rules. The 22 parties do not provide a specific description of the discovery that remains to be completed, see 23 Local Rule 26-3(b); instead, the parties submit that the discovery to be completed includes 24 “depositions of the parties and fact witnesses…prepare expert reports, rebuttal reports, and take 25 the depositions of those experts.” Docket No. 26 at 3. This lacks the required specificity. 26 1 That a request is jointly submitted “neither mandates allowance of the extension sought 27 nor exempts parties from making the necessary showings to justify that relief. Failure to provide such showings may result in denial of a stipulated request to extend the case management 28 deadlines.” Williams v. James River Grp. Inc., 627 F. Supp. 3d 1172, 1178 (D. Nev. 2022). 1 The Court will, nonetheless, allow a 30-day extension of the current deadlines. The Court is not inclined to extend deadlines further. Accordingly, the stipulation to extend is GRANTED 3], in part and DENIED in part. Docket No. 26. Deadlines are RESET as follows: 4 e Initial expert disclosures: March 21, 2025 5 e Rebuttal expert disclosures: April 23, 2025 6 e Discovery cutoff: May 21, 2025 7 e Dispositive motions: June 20, 2025 8 e Joint proposed pretrial order: July 21, 2025, 30 days after resolution of dispositive 9 motions, or by further Court order 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 Dated: February 7, 2025 pe eo Nancy J. Kopps@ 13 United States Magistrate Judge 14 . mY 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Mendoza v. U.S. Turf, LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mendoza-v-us-turf-llc-nvd-2025.