Michelle Peredia, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Kane & Myers, PLLC, d/b/a and a/k/a THE702FIRM; Michael Kane, an individual; Bradley Myers, an individual

Opinion

Sheri M. Thome, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 008657 Holly E. Walker, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 014295 EDELMAN & DICKER LLP 6689 Las Vegas Blvd. South, Suite 200 Las Vegas, Nevada 89119 Telephone: 702.727.1400 Facsimile: 702.727.1401 Email: Sheri.Thome@wilsonelser.com Email: Holly.Walker@wilsonelser.com Attorneys for Defendant Kane & Myers, PLLC d/b/a and a/k/a THE702FIRM

MICHELLE PEREDIA, on behalf of herself Case No. 2:23-cv-02132-APG-MDC and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO STAY DISCOVERY v. PENDING RULING ON THE PARTIES’ BRIEFING ON THE ISSUE OF TENDER KANE & MYERS, PLLC, d/b/a and a/k/a FUTILITY (ECF NOS. 43, 44, 47, 49) THE702FIRM; MICHAEL KANE, an individual; BRADLEY MYERS, an individual; JOEL HENGSTLER, an individual; TAMARA HARLESS, an individual; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive

Defendants.

Defendant Kane & Myers, PLLC d/b/a and a/k/a THE702FIRM (“Defendant”), by and through its attorneys of record, Sheri M. Thome, Esq. and Holly E. Walker, Esq. of Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker LLP, and Plaintiff Michelle Peredia, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated (“Plaintiffs”), by and through their attorneys of record, Jason L. Kuller, Esq., Robert Montes, Jr., Esq., and Ciara Alagao, Esq., of Rafii & Associates, P.C., hereby stipulate to stay discovery, including all discovery deadlines and due dates, pending the Court’s ruling on the parties’ renewed briefing on the issue of tender futility. ECF Nos. 43, 44, 47, 49. /// /// As this Court is aware, Defendant previously brought a motion to dismiss on behalf of itself and the individual defendants. The Court granted the motion in part and allowed limited discovery to explore the issue of tender futility, specifically “whether or not the employer’s tender fully satisfied the amounts owed to Ms. Peredia.” ECF No. 31; ECF No. 32, 51:2-3. The parties have since engaged in this limited discovery and file renewed briefing on the issue of tender futility. ECF Nos. 43, 44, 47, 49. As explained below, the parties agree that a stay of all discovery deadlines and due dates is proper, pending the Court’s decision on the renewed briefing. The court’s “power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the [cases] on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). Further, the court “has wide discretion in controlling discovery[.]” Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988). In deciding whether to stay a case, courts consider the goal of Rule 1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides that the Federal Rules shall “be construed and administered to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action.” Ministerio Roca Solida v. U.S. Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, 288 F.R.D. 500, 504 (D. Nev. Jan. 14, 2013). Here, the parties agree that good cause exists to warrant a stay of all discovery deadlines and due dates. Specifically, the parties agree that it would serve the interests of judicial economy to stay discovery while the Court considers the parties’ briefing and avoid costly written discovery, anticipated discovery-related motion practice, depositions, and expert retention that may be unnecessary if Defendant’s Renewed Motion to Dismiss is granted. If the Renewed Motion is granted, the Court may dismiss certain parties from this litigation and/or narrow the scope of the remaining claims such that judicial economy would be served by a stay. /// /// /// /// /// Based on the foregoing, the parties stipulate and respectfully request that the Court enter a stay of discovery pending the resolution of the parties’ renewed briefing. Within fourteen (14) days after the Court issues a decision on the parties’ renewed briefing, the parties shall submit a stipulation and proposed order to extend discovery deadlines in accordance with LR 26-3 and LR IA 6-1. Dated this 20" day of October, 2025. Dated this 20" day of October, 2025. WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ, EDELMAN RAFII & ASSOCIATES, P.C. g || & DICKER LLP /s/ Holly E. Walker /s/ Robert Montes, Jr. Sheri M. Thome, Esq. Jason L. Kuller, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 008657 Nevada Bar No. 12244 Robert Montes, Jr., Esq. No Ee oiato ; (pro hac vice —CA State Bar No. 159137) evada bal’ NO. . Ciara Alagao, Esq. 6689 Las Vegas Blvd. South, Suite 200 Nevada Bar No. 16789 Las Vegas, Nevada 89119 1120 N. Town Center Dr., Ste. 130 Attorneys for Defendant Las Vegas, Nevada 89144 Attorneys for Plaintiffs IT IS SO ORDERED: “A a i ff a

UNITEDYS1 ATES MAGJS7 RAVE JUDG Lo i 10-21-25 DATED: Po ry