Weil v. Walmart Inc.

CourtDistrict Court, D. Nevada
DecidedJuly 28, 2022
Docket2:21-cv-01631
StatusUnknown

This text of Weil v. Walmart Inc. (Weil v. Walmart Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Nevada primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Weil v. Walmart Inc., (D. Nev. 2022).

Opinion

11 RESNICK & LOUIS, P.C. TROY A. CLARK, ESQ. 22 Nevada Bar No. 11361 tclark@rlattorneys.com 33 MATTHEW B. BECKSTEAD, ESQ. Nevada Bar No: 14168 44 mbeckstead@rlattorneys.com 55 8925 West Russell Road, Suite 220. Las Vegas, NV 89148 66 Telephone: (702) 997-3800 Facsimile: (702) 997-3800 77 Attorneys for Defendant Walmart, Inc. 88 UNITED STATE DISTRICT COURT 99 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 1100 LINDA WEIL, CASE NO.: 2:21-cv-01631-JAD-EJY 1111 Plaintiff, 12 vs. STIPULATION AND ORDER TO 12 EXTEND BRIEFING DEADLINES 11 33 WALMART, INC., a Foreign Corporation; (FIRST REQUEST) ROE ENTITIES I-X, inclusive, 14 14 15 Defendants. 15 16 16 17 COME NOW Defendant WALMART, INC. (“Defendant”), by and through its counsel of 17 18 record TROY A. CLARK, ESQ., and MATTHEW B. BECKSTEAD, ESQ., of the law firm 18 19 RESNICK & LOUIS, P.C., and Plaintiff LINDA WEIL (“Plaintiff”), by and through her counsel 19 20 of record, ANDRE M. LAGOMARSINO, ESQ., and CORY M. FORD, ESQ., of the law firm of 20 21 LAGOMARSINO LAW, and do hereby stipulate to extend the briefing deadline for the Reply 21 22 briefs pertaining to Defendant’s Countermotion for Fees and Costs and to the Extent It Is 22 23 Necessary, Walmart, Inc.’s Countermotion to Withdraw Deemed Admissions that was filed on 23 24 April 4, 2022 [ECF No. 23]. Pursuant to the Local Rule IA 6-1(b), the parties hereby aver that 24 25 this is the parties’ first such extension requested regarding this subject. The parties are requesting 25 26 a deadline of 7 days from the entry of the Court’s entry of this Order, should the Court grant it. 26 27 Plaintiff filed Plaintiff’s Partial Motion for Summary Judgment on March 4, 2022 [ECF 11 No. 13].1 The Court granted the parties’ Stipulation and Order Extending Time to File Opposition 22 to Plaintiff’s Linda Weil’s [sic] Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [ECF 13] on April 1, 2022, 33 extending the deadline to file an Opposition to April 1, 2022 [ECF 20]. Defendant’s current 44 counsel of record substituted in as counsel of record by of this Court’s Order granting the 55 Substitution of Counsel entered on April 4, 2022. [ECF No. 25]. April 4th was the same day the 66 Defendant’s prior counsel filed the Defendant’s Countermotion for Fees and Costs and to the 77 Extent It Is Necessary, Walmart’s Countermotion to Withdraw Deemed Admissions [ECF Nos. 88 22 and 23]. Mr. Beckstead, lead associate counsel for Defendant in this matter, was inadvertently 99 omitted, at first, from the electronic service list for this matter by defense counsel’s firm during 1100 the transition. As a result, Mr. Beckstead was not affirmatively notified of Plaintiff’s Oppositions 1111 to Walmart’s Countermotions for Fees and Costs and to Withdraw Deemed Admissions filed on 12 April 15, 2022, when they were filed [ECF Nos. 30 and 31]. Accordingly, the parties are hereby 12 13 seeking the Court’s order allowing 7 days’ time for Defendant to file its reply briefs. 13 14 /// 14 15 /// 15 16 /// 16 17 /// 17 18 /// 18 19 /// 19 20 /// 20 21 /// 21 22 /// 22 23 /// 23 24 /// 24 25 /// 25 26 26 27 1 This Motion was also filed as ECF No. 15, but the Court docket appears to contain a statement from the Clerk of the ] The parties hereby stipulate that the reply briefs shall be limited to the arguments already 2 || made in the countermotions and oppositions, in a manner consistent with controlling case law. 3 || See Autotel v. Nevada Bell Tel. Co., 697 F.3d 846, 852 n.3 (9th Cir. 2012) (“[A]rguments raised 4 || for the first time in reply brief are waived.”). The parties also stipulate that Defendant will only 5 || utilize evidence and information that was available at the time of the original filing deadline for 6 || the two reply briefs. 81! Dated this 27" day of July 2022 Dated this 27" day of July 2022 RESNICK & LOUIS, P.C. LAGOMARSINO LAW 10 11 /s/ Matthew B. Beckstead /s/ Cory M. Ford TROY A. CLARK, ESQ. ANDRE M. LAGOMARSINO, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 11361 Nevada Bar No. 6711 13 MATTHEW B. BECKSTEAD, ESQ. CORY M. FORD, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 14168 Nevada Bar No. 15042 8925 West Russell Road, Suite 220 3005 W. Horizon Ridge Pkwy., #241 Las Vegas, Nevada 89148 Henderson, Nevada 89052 Id Attorneys for Defendant Walmart, Inc. Attorneys for Plaintiff Linda Weil 16 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED: 19 : UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21 DATED: July 28, 2022 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Autotel v. Nevada Bell Telephone Company
697 F.3d 846 (Ninth Circuit, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Weil v. Walmart Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weil-v-walmart-inc-nvd-2022.