Malloy v. Amazon.Com Services, LLC

1 | MONTGOMERY Y. PAEK, ESQ.

Bar No. 10176 || AMY L. THOMPSON, ESQ.

Bar No. 11907 || DIANA G. DICKSINSON, ESQ.

Bar No. 13477 || EMIL S. KIM, ESQ.

Bar No. 14894 || LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.

3960 Howard Hughes Parkway || Suite 300 Las Vegas, NV 89169-5937 || Telephone: 702.862.8800 Fax No.: 702.862.8811 || Email: [email protected] [email protected] 9 [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Defendant |} AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 13 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 14 DWIGHT MALLOY, on behalf of himself Case No. 2:22-cv-00286-ART-VCF || and all others similarly situated; ORDER 16 Plaintiffs, TO EXTEND TIME FOR THE PARTIES TO SUBMIT STIPULATED DISCOVERY PLAN || VS AND SCHEDULING ORDER PENDING COURT’S RULING ON DEFENDANT’S 18 AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC, MOTION FOR CERTIFICATION FOR INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL (ECF NO. 34) 19 Defendant. [THIRD REQUEST] Defendant AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC (“Amazon”) and Plaintiff DWIGHT MALLOY (‘Plaintiff’), by and through their counsel of record, hereby stipulate to extend the deadline to file the Stipulated Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order from the current deadline of May 15, 2023 [ECF No. 39] until fourteen (14) days after the Court rules upon Defendant’s Motion for Certification of Interlocutory Appeal Under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) or, in the Alternative, Motion to Certify Questions to the Nevada Supreme Court [ECF No. 34]. This is the third request to extend the deadline for submission of the Stipulated Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order.

1 On March 2, 2023, after hearing oral argument, the Court denied Defendant’s Motion to || Dismiss the Amended Complaint (the “Motion to Dismiss”), which sought to dismiss the entirety of || Plaintiffs claims. [ECF Nos. 22; 30]. Thereafter, on April 3, 2023, Defendant filed its Motion for || Certification of Interlocutory Appeal Under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) or, in the Alternative, Motion to || Certify Questions to the Nevada Supreme Court (the “Motion for Certification”). [ECF No. 34]. On || May 1, 2023, Plaintiff filed his Response to the Motion for Certification. [ECF No. 40]. Defendant || intends to file a Reply in Support of the Motion for Certification by the May 22, 2023, deadline, after || which time the parties anticipate a ruling upon the Motion for Certification. [ECF No. 35].

9 It is well recognized that “[c]ourts have broad discretion in managing their dockets.” Byars v. || Western Best, LLC, No. 2:19-CV-1690-JCM-DJA, 2020 WL 8674195, at *1 (D. Nev. Jul. 6, 2020), |] citing Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706-07 (1997). In exercising such discretion, “courts are guided || by the goals of securing the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of actions.” /d.; see also, Fed. R. |} Civ. P. 1.

14 Like Byars, supra, here the parties agree that the deadline for submission of the Stipulated || Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order should be extended pending the Court’s ruling upon the Motion || for Certification. Should the Court grant the Motion for Certification, the parties anticipate review of || the Court’s denial of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss by the United States Court of Appeals for the || Ninth Circuit or alternatively, the Nevada Supreme Court. Accordingly, the parties agree that || submission of a Stipulated Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order to commence discovery pending the || Amazon’s Motion for Certification would cause unnecessary expense to the parties and potentially log || the Court’s docket with unnecessary discovery disputes and/or motion practice. Consistent with the || foregoing, the parties agree they will be in a better position to discuss the necessary scope of discovery || that will be needed, if any, and the amount of time necessary for both sides to gather evidence, once || this Court has ruled upon the pending Motion for Certification and, if granted, once the United States || Court of Appeals for Ninth Circuit, or Nevada Supreme Court, has reviewed Defendant’s interlocutory || appeal.

27 For these reasons, the parties believe it is in the interest of judicial efficiency and consistent || with Rule 1 to submit a Stipulated Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order after the Court rules upon 2.

1 || the Motion for Certification. Should the Court deny the Motion for Certification, the parties propose || to submit the Stipulated Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order fourteen (14) days after such denial.

3 || Should the Court grant the Motion for Certification, the parties agree that within twenty-one (21) days || they will (a) meet and confer about appropriate timing for submission of the Stipulated Discovery Plan || and Scheduling Order and (b) submit an additional stipulation outlining their proposal for timing of || the Stipulated Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order.

7 THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between Plaintiff and Defendant that || the deadline for the parties to submit a proposed Stipulated Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order shall || be extended from May 15, 2023, until after the Court rules upon the pending Motion for Certification || as follows: 11 a. Should the Court deny the pending Motion for Certification, the Stipulated || Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order will be due fourteen (14) days after such denial; 13 b. Should the Court grant the pending Motion for Certification, the parties agree || that within twenty-one (21) days they will (a) meet and confer about appropriate timing for submission || of a proposed Stipulated Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order and (b) submit an additional stipulation || outlining their proposal for timing of the Stipulated Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order.

17 |} /// 19 /// |) /// 23 /// | /// | /// 3. ] The parties respectfully request the Court enter an order granting an extension as detailed || above. The parties attest that the instant request is made in good faith and not for the purpose of undue || delay.

5 || Dated: May 12, 2023 Dated: May 12, 2023 Respectfully submitted, Respectfully submitted, g /s/ Don J. Foty /s/ Diana G. Dickinson DON J. FOTY, ESQ. MONTGOMERY Y. PAEK, ESQ.

9 WILLIAM M. HOGG, ESQ. AMY L. THOMPSON, ESQ.

HODGES & FOTY, LLP DIANA G. DICKINSON, ESQ.

10 EMIL S. KIM, ESQ.

LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.

1 ESTHER C. RODRIGUEZ, ESQ.

RODRIGUEZ LAW OFFICES, P.C. Attorneys for Defendant D AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC Attorneys for Plaintiff B DWIGHT MALLOY 16 IT IS SO ORDERED.

17 Dated: May 15, 2023 , 2023.

18 ; . & é < - UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 4.