1 Jacquelyn J. Kelley, Esq. 5 Nevada Bar No. 14554 AG PRODUCTION SERVICES, INC. 3 Berg Street, Suite 130 North Las Vegas, NV 89081 4 || Telephone: (702) 988-1868 5 jkelley@ag.tc Counsel for Defendant 6 Light and Sound, Inc. 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA 9 10 || PETE’S BIG TVS, INC., a Delaware Case No.: 2:24-cv-00315-APG-NJK 11 || Corporation, 12 Plaintiff, JOINT STIPULATION 13 |} vs. TO CONTINUE BENCH TRIAL AND 14 RELATED TRIAL DATES AG LIGHT AND SOUND, INC., a Nevada 15 ||corporation; DOES I through X, inclusive; and ROE CORPORATIONS I through X, inclusive (FIRST REQUEST) 16 Defendants. 17 18 Pursuant to District of Nevada Local Rules IA 6-1 and IJ 26-3, the Honorable Court’s Tria 19 Scheduling Order Plaintiff, Pete’s Big TVs, Inc. (“Plaintiff”), by and through its counsel of record 20 Takos Law Group, Ltd. and Defendant, AG Light and Sound, Inc. (“Defendant”), by and throu 21 its counsel of record, Jacquelyn J. Kelley, Esq., (collectively, the “Parties”) hereby submit th
33 instant Joint Stipulation to Continue Bench Trial and Related Trial Dates (“Joint Stipulation” 34 currently set in this matter. a5 96 97 /// 1.
1 INTRODUCTION 2 The Bench Trial in this matter is currently set to begin on the September 8, 2025, tria 3 with the calendar call scheduled for September 2, 2025. See ECF Nos. 33 and 34. A Tria 4 ||Scheduling Conference is currently set for August 19, 2025. See ECF No. 37. Due to unforesee 5 unavoidable circumstances, the Parties jointly agree to and respectfully request that thi || Honorable Court continue the Bench Trial approximately 60 to 90 days toa mutually agreed upo T || date, as provided herein, and continue the related trial deadlines accordingly. This is the fir 8 stipulation and request made for the continuance of the trial date. ° Plaintiff's counsel has experienced an unexpected emergency, as his wife recently gav birth to their child. This event has significantly impacted counsel's ability to adequately prepar for trial. Additionally, Defendant’s primary witness and Rule 30(b)(6) corporate representative 1 unavailable for the current trial date due to unforeseen business obligations. For the reasons se forth herein, the Court should find that the Parties’ request for a continuance of the bench trial 1 1s supported by a showing of good cause. 16 Il. 17 PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 18 1. On February 13, 2024, Plaintiff commenced this lawsuit by filing its origina 19 ||complaint against Defendant [Docket No. 1]. 20 2. On March 8, 2024, Defendant filed its answer to Plaintiff’s Complain 21 || (Docket No. 11]. 22 3. On June 11, 2024, the Court entered a scheduling order in this case, includin discovery deadlines [Docket No. 19]. 4. On August 28, 2024, the Parties filed a Jomt Motion (“Jomt Motion”) to Exten Scheduling Order Deadlines as their first request for an extension of the discovery deadlin [Docket No. 21]
1 5. On August 28, 2024, the Court granted the Jomt Motion in part, extending thi 2 discovery cut off to September 11, 2024, and denied the request fora two month extension of thi 3 current deadlines [Docket No. 22]. 4 6. On September 11, 2024, discovery closed in this matter [Docket No. 22] 7. On October 4, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment 6 (“Plaintiff’s MSJ”) [Docket No. 23], to which Defendant opposed on October 29, 2024 [Docke ’ No. 24]. Plaintiff filed its Reply in support of Plaintiff's MSJ on November 12, 2024 [Docket No 25]. 9 10 8. On March 31, 2025, the Court denied Plaintiff’s MSJ [Docket No. 27], finding that
genuine issues of material fact do exist . D 9. On May 27, 2025, the Honorable Chief Judge Andrew P. Gordon issued a Minut 13. || Order setting this matter for Trial on the September 8, 2025 trial stack and referred the matter t 14 ||the United States Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe to schedule a settlement conference with th 15 || Parties [Docket No. 33]. 16 10. On May 29, 2025, the Court set a settlement conference for July 30, 2025 to be hel !7 remotely via video [Docket No. 35]. 18 11. On July 30, 2025, the Parties attended the settlement conference with the Honorabl '9 Nancy J. Koppe [Docket No. 36]. The Court, counsel, and the Parties conferred but a settlemen * was not reached, and the case was returned to the normal litigation track [Docket No. 36]. 12. On July 30, 2025, Plaintiff’s counsel, Mr. Steven Hart, contacted Defense counsel. Ms. Jacquelyn Kelley, to discuss the possibility of jomtly requesting a contmuance of th
September 8, 2025 trial date due to urgent personal matters as he and his wife were expecting 95 in early August, and because of trial counsel’s unavailability. See Exhibit 1, July 30, 202 26 Email string between Counsel for the Parties discussing a trial continuance. 27 13. On July 31, 2025, Ms. Kelley responded to Mr. Hart, agreeing to continue thi September 8, 2025 trial date and provided her client's availability for November 3-14, 2025 an December 1-12, 2025. See Exhibit 1.
1 □□□ In Early August of 2025, Mr. Hart and his wife welcomed a new baby. Give 2 ||Mr. Hart’s wife’s history of difficult pregnancies and recovery, Mr. Hart must take time of! 3 ||through the month of August and will be working on a limited basis. Mr. Hart’s ability to prepar 4 ||for trial in early September will be extremely challenging under these circumstances. Se > Exhibit 1. 6 15. Further, Mr. Hart represented that in addition to himself, trial counsel, Mr. Christia ’ McKinnon, Esq., will be out of the country until September 13. See Exhibit 1. 16. On August 14, 2025, the Court issued a Minute Order, setting a trial schedulin conference for August 19, 2025 at 9:00 am [Docket No. 37]. 17. Pursuant to the Court's Order [Docket No. 37], the Parties are required to eithe 1) form the Court of the anticipated trial length or file a stipulation to continue the trial b 13. || August 15, 2025. The Parties are filing this Joint stipulation in compliance withthe Court's directive 14 18. On August 15, 2025, Mr. Hart notified Ms. Kelley that of the dates she provided 15 Plaintiff is available for trial on the following dates: November 3—14, 2025, December 1-6, 2025 16 December 10-12, 2025. See Exhibit 1. 17 Il. 18 ARGUMENT 19 The decision to grant or deny a contmuance is within the sound discretion of the trial court See Peters v. Cox, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 169614. Courts have broad authority to control thei 1 dockets and may grant continuances for "good cause". See Jd. "Good cause" is generally require to justify a continuance. This standard considers whether the requesting party has been diligen and whether unforeseen or uncontrollable circumstances necessitate the delay. See /d. Good cause exists to grant the requested continuance. Plaintiff's counsel's unexpect family emergency and Defendant's witness unavailability constitute unforeseen circumstances tha 57 Justify a continuance. The Parties have acted diligently in addressing these issues and hav promptly filed this Jomt Stipulation in compliance with the Court's August 14, 2025 Minute Ord [Docket No. 37].
1 Courts consider several factors when determming whether to grant a continuance 2 |}including the diligence of the parties, the usefulness of the continuance, the inconvenience to th 3 ||Court and opposing party, and the potential harm to the moving party. Here, the Parties hav: 4 ||demonstrated diligence by promptly contacting one another to obtam consent from one anothe 5 ||notifying the Court and seeking a continuance. The continuance will allow both parties t 6 || adequately prepare for trial, ensuring a fair and just resolution of the case. The Court has bro 7 |! discretion to grant continuances and may do so to prevent manifest injustice. Given th 8 circumstances, a continuance is necessary to avoid prejudice to both Parties and to ensure th efficient administration of justice.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 Jacquelyn J. Kelley, Esq. 5 Nevada Bar No. 14554 AG PRODUCTION SERVICES, INC. 3 Berg Street, Suite 130 North Las Vegas, NV 89081 4 || Telephone: (702) 988-1868 5 jkelley@ag.tc Counsel for Defendant 6 Light and Sound, Inc. 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA 9 10 || PETE’S BIG TVS, INC., a Delaware Case No.: 2:24-cv-00315-APG-NJK 11 || Corporation, 12 Plaintiff, JOINT STIPULATION 13 |} vs. TO CONTINUE BENCH TRIAL AND 14 RELATED TRIAL DATES AG LIGHT AND SOUND, INC., a Nevada 15 ||corporation; DOES I through X, inclusive; and ROE CORPORATIONS I through X, inclusive (FIRST REQUEST) 16 Defendants. 17 18 Pursuant to District of Nevada Local Rules IA 6-1 and IJ 26-3, the Honorable Court’s Tria 19 Scheduling Order Plaintiff, Pete’s Big TVs, Inc. (“Plaintiff”), by and through its counsel of record 20 Takos Law Group, Ltd. and Defendant, AG Light and Sound, Inc. (“Defendant”), by and throu 21 its counsel of record, Jacquelyn J. Kelley, Esq., (collectively, the “Parties”) hereby submit th
33 instant Joint Stipulation to Continue Bench Trial and Related Trial Dates (“Joint Stipulation” 34 currently set in this matter. a5 96 97 /// 1.
1 INTRODUCTION 2 The Bench Trial in this matter is currently set to begin on the September 8, 2025, tria 3 with the calendar call scheduled for September 2, 2025. See ECF Nos. 33 and 34. A Tria 4 ||Scheduling Conference is currently set for August 19, 2025. See ECF No. 37. Due to unforesee 5 unavoidable circumstances, the Parties jointly agree to and respectfully request that thi || Honorable Court continue the Bench Trial approximately 60 to 90 days toa mutually agreed upo T || date, as provided herein, and continue the related trial deadlines accordingly. This is the fir 8 stipulation and request made for the continuance of the trial date. ° Plaintiff's counsel has experienced an unexpected emergency, as his wife recently gav birth to their child. This event has significantly impacted counsel's ability to adequately prepar for trial. Additionally, Defendant’s primary witness and Rule 30(b)(6) corporate representative 1 unavailable for the current trial date due to unforeseen business obligations. For the reasons se forth herein, the Court should find that the Parties’ request for a continuance of the bench trial 1 1s supported by a showing of good cause. 16 Il. 17 PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 18 1. On February 13, 2024, Plaintiff commenced this lawsuit by filing its origina 19 ||complaint against Defendant [Docket No. 1]. 20 2. On March 8, 2024, Defendant filed its answer to Plaintiff’s Complain 21 || (Docket No. 11]. 22 3. On June 11, 2024, the Court entered a scheduling order in this case, includin discovery deadlines [Docket No. 19]. 4. On August 28, 2024, the Parties filed a Jomt Motion (“Jomt Motion”) to Exten Scheduling Order Deadlines as their first request for an extension of the discovery deadlin [Docket No. 21]
1 5. On August 28, 2024, the Court granted the Jomt Motion in part, extending thi 2 discovery cut off to September 11, 2024, and denied the request fora two month extension of thi 3 current deadlines [Docket No. 22]. 4 6. On September 11, 2024, discovery closed in this matter [Docket No. 22] 7. On October 4, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment 6 (“Plaintiff’s MSJ”) [Docket No. 23], to which Defendant opposed on October 29, 2024 [Docke ’ No. 24]. Plaintiff filed its Reply in support of Plaintiff's MSJ on November 12, 2024 [Docket No 25]. 9 10 8. On March 31, 2025, the Court denied Plaintiff’s MSJ [Docket No. 27], finding that
genuine issues of material fact do exist . D 9. On May 27, 2025, the Honorable Chief Judge Andrew P. Gordon issued a Minut 13. || Order setting this matter for Trial on the September 8, 2025 trial stack and referred the matter t 14 ||the United States Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe to schedule a settlement conference with th 15 || Parties [Docket No. 33]. 16 10. On May 29, 2025, the Court set a settlement conference for July 30, 2025 to be hel !7 remotely via video [Docket No. 35]. 18 11. On July 30, 2025, the Parties attended the settlement conference with the Honorabl '9 Nancy J. Koppe [Docket No. 36]. The Court, counsel, and the Parties conferred but a settlemen * was not reached, and the case was returned to the normal litigation track [Docket No. 36]. 12. On July 30, 2025, Plaintiff’s counsel, Mr. Steven Hart, contacted Defense counsel. Ms. Jacquelyn Kelley, to discuss the possibility of jomtly requesting a contmuance of th
September 8, 2025 trial date due to urgent personal matters as he and his wife were expecting 95 in early August, and because of trial counsel’s unavailability. See Exhibit 1, July 30, 202 26 Email string between Counsel for the Parties discussing a trial continuance. 27 13. On July 31, 2025, Ms. Kelley responded to Mr. Hart, agreeing to continue thi September 8, 2025 trial date and provided her client's availability for November 3-14, 2025 an December 1-12, 2025. See Exhibit 1.
1 □□□ In Early August of 2025, Mr. Hart and his wife welcomed a new baby. Give 2 ||Mr. Hart’s wife’s history of difficult pregnancies and recovery, Mr. Hart must take time of! 3 ||through the month of August and will be working on a limited basis. Mr. Hart’s ability to prepar 4 ||for trial in early September will be extremely challenging under these circumstances. Se > Exhibit 1. 6 15. Further, Mr. Hart represented that in addition to himself, trial counsel, Mr. Christia ’ McKinnon, Esq., will be out of the country until September 13. See Exhibit 1. 16. On August 14, 2025, the Court issued a Minute Order, setting a trial schedulin conference for August 19, 2025 at 9:00 am [Docket No. 37]. 17. Pursuant to the Court's Order [Docket No. 37], the Parties are required to eithe 1) form the Court of the anticipated trial length or file a stipulation to continue the trial b 13. || August 15, 2025. The Parties are filing this Joint stipulation in compliance withthe Court's directive 14 18. On August 15, 2025, Mr. Hart notified Ms. Kelley that of the dates she provided 15 Plaintiff is available for trial on the following dates: November 3—14, 2025, December 1-6, 2025 16 December 10-12, 2025. See Exhibit 1. 17 Il. 18 ARGUMENT 19 The decision to grant or deny a contmuance is within the sound discretion of the trial court See Peters v. Cox, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 169614. Courts have broad authority to control thei 1 dockets and may grant continuances for "good cause". See Jd. "Good cause" is generally require to justify a continuance. This standard considers whether the requesting party has been diligen and whether unforeseen or uncontrollable circumstances necessitate the delay. See /d. Good cause exists to grant the requested continuance. Plaintiff's counsel's unexpect family emergency and Defendant's witness unavailability constitute unforeseen circumstances tha 57 Justify a continuance. The Parties have acted diligently in addressing these issues and hav promptly filed this Jomt Stipulation in compliance with the Court's August 14, 2025 Minute Ord [Docket No. 37].
1 Courts consider several factors when determming whether to grant a continuance 2 |}including the diligence of the parties, the usefulness of the continuance, the inconvenience to th 3 ||Court and opposing party, and the potential harm to the moving party. Here, the Parties hav: 4 ||demonstrated diligence by promptly contacting one another to obtam consent from one anothe 5 ||notifying the Court and seeking a continuance. The continuance will allow both parties t 6 || adequately prepare for trial, ensuring a fair and just resolution of the case. The Court has bro 7 |! discretion to grant continuances and may do so to prevent manifest injustice. Given th 8 circumstances, a continuance is necessary to avoid prejudice to both Parties and to ensure th efficient administration of justice. 10 Moreover, the Parties bring this Jomt Stipulation in the interest of justice and not for th 11 purpose of undue delay. Pursuant to Local Rule JA 6-1, this Jomt Stipulation is the first reques 12 3 fora continuance of the trial date in the case. In addition, pursuant to Local Rule II 26-3, the Partie 14 || State that there is good cause for this Jomt Stipulation because the requested continuance 1 15 ||mecessary in light of the Parties’ and their counsel’s availability and their limited ability t 16 ||efficiently and adequately prepare for trial. 17 Consequently, the Court should find that good cause exists to support the Parties’ firs 18 ||request for a trial continuance in this matter, as the need has arisen from unforeseeable event 19 || beyond the control of the Parties, the Parties request is timely, and the actions and communicatio 20 || between counsel for the Parties is evidence of their diligence to comply with the Court’s Minut *1 |! Order [Docket No. 37] and Local Rules IA6-1 and II 26-3. 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 57 /// /// ///
l IV. 2 CONCLUSION 3 For the foregoing reasons, and pursuant to Local Rules JA 6-1 and II 26-3, and for goo 4 |\cause, the Parties jomtly and respectfully request that the Court grant this Jomt Stipulation t 5 || continue the Bench Trial and related trial dates. That the Bench Trial is continued to a date feasibl © |! with the Court’s trial calendar and within the Parties’ followmg mutually agreed upon timeframe 7 |! of November 3-14, 2025, December 1-6, 2025, or December 10-12, 2025. 8 9 DATED this 15" day of August 2025. DATED this 15 day August 2025. 10 |) TAKOS LAW GROUP, LTD. AG PRODUCTION SERVICES, INC. 12 13 /s/ Steven R. Hart /s/ Jacquelyn J. Kelley 14 || Steven R. Hart, Esq. Jacquelyn J. Kelley, Esq. 15 Nevada Bar No. 15418 Nevada Bar No. 14554 10785 W. Twain Avenue, Suite 224 4660 Berg St., Suite 130 16 || Las Vegas, Nevada 89135 North Las Vegas, Nevada 89081 Counsel for Pete's Big TVs, Inc. Counsel for AG Light and Sound, Inc. 17 18 19 ORDER 20 Based on the parties’ stipulation: 21 The bench trial scheduled for September 8, 2025, is continued to December 1, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. 22 |) The calendar call scheduled for September 2, 2025, is continued to November 20, 2025, at 9:00 3 || a.m. The trial scheduling conference scheduled for September 19, 2025, is vacated and reset for November 12, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. All matters will be heard in LV Courtroom 6C. 24 25 IT IS SO ORDERED: *6 Dated: August 18, 2025 27 “ Z ee ANDREW P. GORDON CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE