Speaks v. Employers Holdings Inc.

Opinion

Nevada Bar No. 12493 Nevada Bar No. 14173 JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 300 South Fourth Street, Suite 900 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 Telephone: (702) 921-2460 Email: joshua.sliker@jacksonlewis.com Email: katlyn.brady@jacksonlewis.com Attorneys for Defendants Employers Holdings Inc. and EIG Services UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA TAMARA SPEAKS, Case No. 2:23-cv-00068-GMN-BNW Plaintiff, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR AN vs. EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED EMPLOYERS HOLDINGS INC., a Nevada corporation; EIG SERVICES, INC., a Florida COMPLAINT corporation; DOES I THROUGH X, (FIRST REQUEST) INCLSUIVE, Defendants. Defendants Employers Holdings, Inc. (“EHI”) and EIG Services, Inc. (“EIG”), by and through its counsel, the law firm of Jackson Lewis P.C., hereby brings the instant Motion for an Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint. Defendants’ response to the Complaint is currently due on April 5, 2023. Defendants seek an extension up to and including to April 26, 2023. This is the first request by Defendants to extend time to file their response to the First Amended Complaint. This Motion is based on the following Memorandum of Points and Authorities, all pleadings and documents on file with the Court, and any oral argument that the Court deems proper. On February 10, 2023, Defendant EHI filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint. ECF No. 10. In response, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC) on March 22, 2023. ECF No. 20. The FAC adds a new party (EIG) and states five causes of action arising out of Plaintiff’s prior employment. Between March 24, 2023, and April 2, 2023, undersigned counsel was out of the office with extremely limited email access. Undersigned counsel was unable to investigate the new allegations in the FAC nor was undersigned counsel able to complete an initial response. On April 5, 2023, undersigned counsel contacted Plaintiff’s counsel to request that the responsive deadline be extended to April 26, 2023, based upon counsel’s extended absence and current workload. To date, undersigned counsel has not received a response. Accordingly, Defendants now request this Court extend the deadline to respond to the FAC from April 5, 2023, to April 26, 2023. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1) provides that when an act must be done within a specified time, the Court “may, for good cause, extend the time . . . with or without motion or notice if the court acts, or if a request is made, before the original time or its extension expires . . . .” “Good cause” is not a rigorous or high standard, and courts have construed the test broadly. Ahanchion v. Kenan Pictures, 624 F.3d 1253 (9th Cir. 2010). Rule 6(b) “[is] to be liberally construed to effectuate the general purpose of seeing that cases are tried on the merits.” Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 459 (9th Cir. 1983); Wong v. Regents of the Univ. of Calif., 410 F.3d 1052, 1060 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Of course, courts should not mindlessly enforce deadlines.”). Indeed, the “good cause” standard “primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” In re W. States Wholesale Nat. Gas Antitrust Litig., 715 F.3d 716, 737 (9th Cir. 2013). In general, an application for extension of time under Rule 6(b)(1)(A) will be granted in the absence of bad faith. Ahanchion, 624 F.3d at 1259 (quoting 4B CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT & ARTHUR R. MILLER, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND P § 1165 (3d ed. 2004)) (internal quotations omitted). Here, there is good cause to extend the time for Defendants to file their response t Plaintiffs FAC to April 26, 2023. From March 24, 2023, through April 2, 2023, undersigne counsel was traveling out of state and had extremely limited email access. Thus, counsel was unabl: to investigate the claims, confer with the newly named Defendant, or prepare a responsive pleading Upon undersigned counsel’s return, counsel was required to respond to several pressin: matters involving numerous administrative charges and settlement negotiations. As such, Defendants require time to have a fair and sufficient opportunity to investigate an evaluate these matters and prepare their response. Accordingly, Defendants expressly reserve th right to assert defenses, including without limitation, motions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b), as ne such motion is made here and therefore none are waived. Szanto v. Marina Marketplace 1, LLC No. 3:11-cv-00394-RCJ-VPC, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 168028, at *10 (D. Nev. Nov. 26, 2013) Defense counsel has acted diligently upon her return to investigate the new allegations and begi drafting a response. No prior extensions have been requested for the FAC, and this request is no made in bad faith or to delay the proceedings. Hil. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Defendants respectfully request the Court grant their Motion fo an Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint up to and including Apri } 26, 2023. Dated this 5" day of April, 2023. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. /s/ Katlyn M. Brady JOSHUA A. SLIKER, ESQ Nevada Bar No. 12493 KATLYN M. BRADY, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 14173 300 South Fourth Street, Suite 900 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 Attorneys for Defendants DATED, 35pm, gi 20 2g qn la wen

I HEREBY CERTIFY that I am an employee of Jackson Lewis P.C., and that on this 5th day of April, 2023, I caused to be served via the Court’s Electronic Filing System DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (FIRST REQUEST) properly addressed to the following: Paul S. Padda 4560 South Decatur Boulevard, Suite 300 Las Vegas, Nevada 89103

/s/ Katlyn M. Brady Employee of Jackson Lewis P.C.

4881-5434-3516, v. 1