U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. PRC INDUSTRIES, INC. CORP

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: May 1, 2023
• Docket: 3:23-cv-00135
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 9 10 U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT Case No: 3:23-cv-00135-LRH-CSD OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, 11 ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION TO EXTEND 12 Plaintiff, TIME FOR DEFENDANT TO v. RESPOND TO MOTION TO 13 INTERVENE (First Request) PRC INDUSTRIES, INC., CORP. d/b/a 14 PRODUCT REMANUFACTURING 15 CENTERS INDUSTRIES, INC., 16 Defendant. 17 18 Defendant PRC INDUSTRIES, INC., d/b/a PRODUCT REMANUFACTURING 19 CENTERS INDUSTRIES, INC., (“PRC”) by and through its attorney of record, 20 REBECCA BRUCH, ESQ. of LEMONS, GRUNDY & EISENBERG, and THE GEDDES 21 LAW FIRM, by and through its attorney of record, WILLIAM J. GEDDES, attorney of 22 record for Plaintiff-Intervenors Roderick S. Woods and Tashia B. Woods, pursuant to 23 Local Rule IA 6-1, hereby stipulate to extend the time for Defendant to respond to Plaintiff- 24 Intervenors’ Motion to Intervene to May 12, 2023. This requested extension and 25 stipulation is sought in good faith and not for the purposes of delay. 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 2 I. LEGAL AUTHORITY 3 Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1) governs the extension of time to respond to Motions. “When an 4 act may or must be done within a specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend the 5 time…” Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1). The “good cause” standard focuses primarily on the 6 movant’s diligence. Coleman v Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1294-95 (9th Cir. 2000). 7 A. Current Status of Complaint. 8 On March 28, 2023, Plaintiff EEOC filed its Complaint. See ECF No. 1. On March 9 31, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Request for Waiver of Service. See ECF No. 4. On April 7, 10 2023, Plaintiff-Intervenors filed a Motion to Intervene, and on April 8, 2023, Plaintiff- 11 Intervenors filed a Notice of Erratum. See ECF No. 6 and ECF No. 7. Defendant had not 12 yet made an appearance in this action. On April 12, 2023, Defendant executed the Waiver 13 Of Service Of Summons and it was filed on that same date. See ECF No. 8. Defendant’s 14 Answer is due May 30, 2023. A Response to the Motion to Intervene would have been 15 due on April 21, 2023. Defendants became aware of the Motion to Intervene on April 16 26, 2023, after the due date for the Response to the Motion to Intervene. See ECF No. 10. 17 In Plaintiff-Intervenors’ Notice of Motion, they noted that they do not oppose 18 allowing Defendant additional time to file a response to Plaintiff-Intervenors’ Motion to 19 Intervene, in order to allow Defendant’s counsel to confer with her clients. Id. 20 Counsel for Plaintiff-Intervenors and Defendant have spoken and stipulate to an 21 extension of time to respond up to and including May 12, 2023. 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff-Intervenors and Defendant request the Court to 2 || approve their stipulation for extension up to and including May 12, 2023. 3 Dated this 27" day of April, 2023. 4 LEMONS, GRUNDY & EISENBERG 5 6 By: /s/ Rebecca Bruch 7 REBECCA BRUCH, ESQ. (SBN7289) 6005 Plumas St., Third Floor 8 Reno, Nevada 89519 9 Attorneys for Defendant 10 THE GEDDES LAW FIRM 11 12 By: __/s/ William J. Geddes 13 WILLIAM J. GEDDES, ESQ. (SBN6984) 1575 Delucchi Lane, Suite 206 14 Reno, NV 89502 (775) 853-9455 15 Attorneys for Plaintiff-Intervenors 16 17 ORDER 18 IT IS SO ORDERED that Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff-Intervenor’s Motion to 19 || Intervene is hereby extended to May 12, 2023. 20 DATED this 1* day of May, 2023. 21 A an h C4 09 LARRY R. HICKS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28