Mercer v. Caesars Entertainment, Inc.

Opinion

1 MONTGOMERY Y. PAEK, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 10176 2 AMY L. THOMPSON, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 11907 3 MICHAEL D. DISSINGER, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 15208 4 LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 3960 Howard Hughes Parkway 5 Suite 300 Las Vegas, Nevada 89169.5937 6 Telephone: 702.862.8800 Fax No.: 702.862.8811 7 mpaek@littler.com athompson@littler.com 8 mdissinger@littler.com 9 Attorneys for Defendants CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT, INC. AND PARIS 10 LAS VEGAS OPERATING CO., LLC 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 12 13 LEANN MERCER, on behalf of herself and all Case No. 2:23-cv-00958-MMD-NJK others similarly situated, 14 Plaintiff, STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 15 ORDER TO STAY PROCEEDINGS FOR v. 120 DAYS PENDING MEDIATION 16 CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT, INC.; PARIS [FIRST REQUEST] 17 LAS VEGAS OPERATING CO., LLC; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, 18 Defendants. 19 20 Plaintiff, LEANN MERCER (“Plaintiff”), and Defendants, CAESARS 21 ENTERTAINMENT, INC. (“Caesars”) and PARIS LAS VEGAS OPERATING CO., LLC 22 (“Paris”) (“Defendants”) (together, the “Parties”), by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby 23 agree and stipulate to stay all proceedings in this matter, including responsive pleadings and 24 discovery, for one-hundred twenty (120) days from July 21, 2023 up to and including November 25 20, 2023, to permit time for the Parties to engage in mediation of Plaintiff’s claims and causes of 26 action against Defendants. 27 28 1 The purpose of the instant stipulation is to promote judicial economy and permit this Court 2 to effectively control the disposition of cases on its docket with economy of time and effort for 3 itself, counsel, and the litigants. See Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936) (“[T]he power 4 to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the dispositions of 5 the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.”); 6 Pate v. DePay Orthopedics, Inc., No. 2:12-cv-01168-MMD-CWH, 2012 WL 3532780, *2 (D. Nev. 7 Aug. 14, 2012) (“A trial court may, with propriety, find it is efficient for its own docket and the 8 fairest course for the parties to enter a stay of an action before it, pending resolution of independent 9 proceedings which bear upon the case.”) (internal citations omitted). In evaluating whether to stay 10 proceedings, the Court should look at the competing interests of the parties and of the Court, 11 including “‘possible damage which may result in granting the stay, the hardship or inequity which 12 a party may suffer in being required to go forward, and the orderly course of justice measured in 13 terms of simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law which could expected 14 to result from a stay.’” Coker v. Dowd, No. 2:13-cv-0994-JCM-NJK, 2013 WL 12216682, *1 (D. 15 Nev. Jul. 8, 2013) (granting joint motion to stay all proceedings pending mediation), quoting 16 Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1110 (9th Cir. 2005). 17 The Parties have been actively exploring alternative dispute resolution to potentially resolve 18 this litigation entirely. As this is a putative class action, such exploration is more complex and time 19 consuming. Nonetheless, the Parties have reached an agreement to engage in private mediation, 20 which, due to availability of the Parties and counsel, is presently scheduled for Wednesday, October 21 25, 2023. The Parties believe that, through mediation, the Parties may be able to resolve the matter 22 and avoid unnecessary litigation costs and the waste of judicial resources. 23 Based on the foregoing, the Parties agree that their interests are aligned in seeking to 24 potentially resolve the matter entirely without expending unnecessary litigation costs and efforts, 25 and that accordingly neither Plaintiff nor Defendants will be prejudiced by a stay of proceedings. 26 The Parties also agree that they will each suffer an avoidable hardship – time and money spent 27 litigating – if the matter is required to proceed at this stage considering the Parties’ agreement to 28 mediate. Lastly, the Parties respectfully submit that staying all proceedings pending mediation will 1 || avoid the waste of judicial resources by simplifying or entirely disposing of the issues in this action. 2 || Accordingly, the Parties agree and stipulate that good cause exists to stay all proceedings as 3 || requested herein. 4 The Parties will also file a joint status report informing the Court of the outcome of 5 | mediation within fourteen (14) days of its completion as follows: 6 1. Should the Parties reach a settlement of all claims, the Parties will update the Court 7 || as to the tentative resolution and set forth a proposed briefing schedule for settlement approval; or 8 2. Should the Parties be unsuccessful at resolving all claims, the Parties shall inform 9 || the Court which, if any, claims were not resolved and propose a scheduling order for the matter to 10 || proceed, including for Defendants’ responsive pleading and commencement of discovery. 11 The instant stipulation is submitted in good faith to allow the parties to potentially resolve 12 || the matter entirely through private mediation and 1s not for the purpose of causing any undue delay. 13 IT IS SO STIPULATED. 14 15 Dated: July 21, 2023 Dated: July 21, 2023 16 || Respectfully submitted, Respectfully submitted, 17 || “s/ Joshua R. Hendrickson /s/ Michael D. Dissinger MARK R. THIERMAN, ESQ. MONTGOMERY Y. PAEK, ESQ. 18 || JOSHUA D. BUCK, ESQ. AMY L. THOMPSON, ESQ. 19 2 STL TONES. ESQ. ESQ. MICHAEL D. DISSINGER, ESQ. THIERMAN BUCK, TLP LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 20 Attorneys for Defendants || Attomeys for Plaintiff CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT, INC. AND LEANN MERCER PARIS LAS VEGAS OPERATING CO., 22 LLC 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 95 Dated: July21,2023 00

27 38 UNITED STATES DISTICT JUDGE