Millisa Nikitas, Jeremey Sessoms v. CarMax Auto Superstores, Inc.; PAR, Inc. d/b/a PAR North America; and C G Asset Recovery, Inc.

Opinion

2 4 6 9 MILLISA NIKITAS, JEREMEY SESSOMS, Case No. 2:26-cv-0162 1-GMN-NJK 10 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING AGREED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF 11 Vv. TIME TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT 12 CARMAX AUTO SUPERSTORES, INC.; PAR, INC. d/b/a PAR NORTH 13 AMERICA; and C G ASSET RECOVERY, INC.; 14 Defendants. 15 16 17 I]. INTRODUCTION 18 Plaintiffs filed their Complaint in the District of Nevada, alleging, inter alia, that Defendant 19 || breached the peace by repossession of Plaintiffs’ vehicle in violation of Nev. Rev. Stat. § 104.9606 20 || the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. (the “FDCPA”), and conversion. 21 Given the allegations made and the claims asserted, Defendants CarMax Auto Superstores 22 ||Inc. and PAR, Inc., d/b/a/ PAR North America (“Defendants”), require additional time t 23 ||determine how they intend to respond to the Complaint. Accordingly, Defendants request 24 || additional time up to and including August 6, 2026, to prepare responses to the Complaint. 25 Counsel for Defendants contacted counsel for Plaintiffs who consents to the relief requestec 26 || herein. 27 28

1 Il. STANDARD 2 Rule 6 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[w]hen an act may or must b 3 || done within a specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend the time....” Fed. R. Civ. F 4 || 6(b)(1). “‘Good cause’ is understood to mean ‘[a] legally sufficient reason,’ and it reflects ‘the burde: 5 || placed on a litigant (usu. by court rule or order) to show why a request should be granted or an □□□□□□ 6 || excused.’” Joseph v. Hess Oil Virgin Islands Corp., 651 F.3d 348, 355 Gd Cir. 2011) (quoting Black 7 || Law Dictionary 251 (9th ed. 2009)). 8 Il. ARGUMENT 9 Defendants submit that good cause for an extension exists here. First, this litigation is in it 10 || infancy. As a result, Defendants submit that additional time to respond to the Complaint will resul 11. minimal prejudice to the parties. Additionally, good cause exists as, in the process of reviewing th 12 |\allegations made against it, Defendant now believes that it may be able to move to dismiss th 13 || Complaint on the merits. Exploring further and potentially briefing a motion to dismiss will requir 14 || additional time and resources. Defendant requests additional time to prepare and file its responsiv: 15 || pleading. 17 For the reasons above, Defendants respectfully submit that good cause exists for this Cour 18 ||to grant them an extension of time, up to and including August 6, 2026, to respond to Plaintiffs 19 || Complaint. 20 DATED this 23" day of June, 2026. 21 || ITIS SO ORDERED 7 Dated: June 24, 2026

Nancy J. Koppe: 25 |) United States N agistrate Judge

27 28