Sexton v. Spirit Airlines, Inc.
This text of Sexton v. Spirit Airlines, Inc. (Sexton v. Spirit Airlines, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
1 James A. Clark, Bar No. 278372 james.clark@towerlegalgroup.com 2 Renee P. Ortega, Bar No. 283441 renee.parras@towerlegalgroup.com 3 Ariel A. Pytel, Bar No. 328917 ariel.pytel@towerlegalgroup.com 4 TOWER LEGAL GROUP, P.C. 11335 Gold Express Drive, Suite 105 5 Sacramento, California 95670 Telephone: 916.361-6609 6 Fax No.: 916.361.6019 7 Attorneys for Plaintiff, SCOTT SEXTON 8 [Additional counsel on following page] 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 SCOTT SEXTON, Case No. 2:21-cv-00898-TLN-AC 13 Plaintiff, JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER 14 REGARDING CASE STATUS v. 15 SPIRIT AIRLINES, INC.,1 a Delaware 16 Corporation; and Does 1-10, inclusive, 17 Defendant. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 Spirit’s legal name has changed from Spirit Airlines, Inc. to Spirit Airlines, LLC. Spirit Airlines, 1 Nicholas McKinney, Bar No. 322792 nmckinney@littler.com 2 LITTLER MENDELSON P.C. 500 Capitol Mall, Suite 2000 3 Sacramento, California 95814 Telephone: 916.830.7200 4 Fax No.: 916.561.0828 5 Benjamin Sanchez, Bar No. 313871 BSanchez@littler.com 6 LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. Treat Towers 7 1255 Treat Boulevard, Suite 600 Walnut Creek, CA 94597 8 Telephone: 925.932.2468 Fax No.: 925.946.9809 9 Miguel A. Morel (Pro Hac Vice) 10 mamorel@littler.com LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 11 333 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131 12 Telephone: 305.400.7500 Fax No.: 305.603.2552 13 14 Attorneys for Defendant SPIRIT AIRLINES, INC. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 Pursuant to the Court’s order on April 3, 2025 [ECF 45], Plaintiff Scott Sexton (“Plaintiff”) 2 and Defendant Spirit Airlines, LLC. (“Defendant”) (collectively, the “Parties”), by and through 3 their respective counsel of record, hereby agree and respectfully stipulate as follows: 4 WHEREAS, on May 18, 2021, this Court issued its Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order [ECF 5 2] (“Scheduling Order”), which set all trial related deadlines, including deadlines and procedures 6 relating to discovery, disclosure of expert witnesses, supplemental discovery, dispositive motions, 7 and trial setting. 8 WHEREAS, on June 14, 2023, pursuant to the Parties’ Joint Stipulation and Court Order 9 [ECF 32], the discovery cutoff date (and related deadlines) was set for November 27, 2024. 10 WHEREAS, on November 20, 2024, Defendant filed a Notice of Suggestion of Bankruptcy 11 and Automatic Stay of Proceedings [ECF 40]. Pursuant to the Notice, the Court stayed the action 12 to be reopened at the request of the Parties [ECF 41]. 13 WHEREAS, on April 2, 2025, Defendant filed a Notice of Effectiveness of Chapter 11 Plan 14 of Reorganization of Spirit Airlines [ECF 43], notifying the Court that the Bankruptcy stay no 15 longer applied and that litigation may resume. 16 WHEREAS, on April 3, 2025, this Court reopened this Action and directed the Parties to 17 file a Stipulation and Proposed Order, or Joint Status Report, including proposed scheduling dates 18 moving forward [ECF 45]. 19 WHEREAS, in light of the stay resulting from Defendant’s Bankruptcy Proceedings, the 20 Parties were unable to follow up on key discovery items during the stay and need additional time 21 to complete discovery. As such, good cause exists to modify the Court’s Order setting the discovery 22 cutoff date for November 27, 2024 [ECF 32], to allow the parties additional time to complete 23 discovery. See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992) (district 24 court given broad discretion in supervising the pretrial phase of litigation, including modifying the 25 scheduling order for good cause and with the judge’s consent); see e.g., Hood v. Hartford Life & 26 Acc. Ins. Co., 567 F.Supp.2d 1221, 1224 (E.D. Cal. 2008) (granting request for modification that 27 was promptly made when it became apparent that compliance with the scheduling order was not 28 possible). 1 THEREFORE, upon good cause shown, the Parties hereby agree and stipulate that the 2 discovery cutoff date (and related dates) shall be extended by 60 days, to July 1, 2025, to allow the 3 Parties to complete discovery. The Parties agree to resume all other trial related dates pursuant to 4 the Court’s Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order [ECF 2]. 5 Dated: May 2, 2025 LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 6 7 /s/ 8 NICHOLAS W. MCKINNEY BENJAMIN SANCHEZ 9 MIGUEL A. MOREL 10 Attorneys for Defendant Spirit Airlines, Inc. 11 Dated: May 2, 2025 TOWER LEGAL GROUP, P.C. 12 13 /s/ 14 JAMES A. CLARK RENEE P. ORTEGA 15 ARIEL A. PYTEL Attorneys for Plaintiff SCOTT SEXTON 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 ORDER 2 PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS ORDERED AS FOLLOWS: 3 e The Discovery Cutoff Date (and related deadlines) is extended by 60 days, to July 4 1, 2025. 5 e With the exception of the discovery cutoff date, currently set for July 1, 2025, all 6 other trial related dates noted in the Court’s Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order [ECF 7 2] shall remain in effect. 8 || DATED: May 2, 2025 7, 9 10 Troy L. Nunley Chief United States District Judge 12 13 14 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
Sexton v. Spirit Airlines, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sexton-v-spirit-airlines-inc-caed-2025.