Wheeler v. Marlou Corporation

1 Laurent R.G. Badoux, Esq.

NevadaBar No. 07265 LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.

CamelbackEsplanade 2425 East Camelback Road Suite 900 Phoenix, Arizona 85016 Telephone: 602.474.3600 Fax No.: 602.957.1801 [email protected] Kelsey E. Stegall, Esq.

7 Nevada Bar No. 14279 LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.

8 3960 Howard Hughes Parkway Suite 300 Las Vegas, Nevada 89169.5937 Telephone: 702.862.8800 Fax No.: 702.862.8811 [email protected] AttorneysforDefendants MARLOU CORP D/B/A CLUB PLATINUM AND RITA CAPOVILLA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 14 DISTRICT OF NEVADA LINDA WHEELER and KARISSA ANN Case No. 2:23-cv-01556-APG-BNW HUGH, individually, and on behalf of similarly situated individuals, STIPULATION AND (PROPOSED) 17 ORDER TO STAY DISCOVERY Plaintiffs, PENDING MEDIATION v. [FIRST REQUEST] MARLOU CORPORATION d/b/a CLUB PLATINUM, a Nevada corporation, and RITA CAPOVILLA, Defendants.

Plaintiffs LINDA WHEELER and KARISSA ANN HUGH, and Defendant MARLOU CORPORATION d/b/a CLUB PLATINUM and RITA CAPOVILLA, through their respective counsel, hereby stipulate and agree to stay discovery pending mediation.

Courts have “broad discretion in managing their dockets.” Byars v. Western Best, LLC, No. 2:19-cv-1690-JCM-DJA,2020WL8674195,at*1(D.Nev.Jul.6,2020)(citingClintonv.Jones,520 U.S.681,706–07(1997)). Inexercisingthisdiscretion,“courtareguidedbythegoalsofsecuringthe just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of actions.” Id.; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. This broad discretion applies to discovery, including whether to allow or deny discovery. See e.g., Little v. City ofSeattle,863F.2d681,685(9thCir. 1988). Thepartiesagreethatgoodcauseexiststostaydiscovery given that the parties are in active settlement discussions and are in the process of scheduling formal mediation in an attempt to pursue a full resolution of this matter. See Schrader v. Wynn Las Vegas, LLC, No. 2:19-cv-02159-JCM-BNW, 2021 WL 4810324, at *4 (D. Nev. Oct. 14, 2021); Aristocrat Techs., Inc. v. Light & Wonder, Inc., No. 2:24-cv-00382-GMN-MDC, 2024 WL 2302151, at *1 (D.

9 Nev. May 21, 2024). Staying discovery here will also avoid duplicating discovery efforts and help avoid unnecessary fees associated with pursuing discovery before the mediation. Consistent with the foregoing, the parties agree that 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 if mediation proves to be unsuccessful.

14 Therefore, the Parties hereby agreeandstipulate that: 15 1. All discovery deadlines in this action shall be stayed for a period of sixty (60) days in order for the parties to engage in mediation. The parties thus request discovery be stayed until May 19,2025, in order to facilitate mediation efforts and to diverttime and resourcesto same.

18 2. Should mediation result in resolution, the parties will notify the Court accordingly.

19 Should mediation not result in resolution, no later than May 19, 2025, the parties agree to submit a stipulation setting forth new proposed deadlines for the close of discovery, dispositive motions, the pretrial conference,and trial.

22 3. Thepartiesrepresentthattheywouldexpecttorequestanadditionalsixty(60)daysto complete discovery if mediation is not successful.

24 4. This is this first request for a limited stay of discovery and a first request related to scheduling order.

26 5. The Parties agreed that pursuant to Local Rule 26-3, a motion or stipulation to extend adeadlinesetforthabovemustbereceivedbytheCourtnolaterthan21daysbeforetheexpirationof || the subject deadline, and a request made within 21 days of the deadline must be supported by a | showing of good cause.

3 6. The Parties aver that good cause exists here because the parties are actively seeking to || resolve the case and are attempting to do so by pursuing formal mediation.

5 7. The Parties make this stipulation in good faith and not for the purpose of delay.

6 Dated: March 21, 2025 Dated: March 21, 2025 7 Respectfully submitted, Respectfully submitted, /s/ Matthew Thomson 9 Matthew Thomson Laurent R.G. Badoux Lichten & Liss-Riordan, PC Kelsey E. Stegall 10 Littler Mendelson Kristina L. Hillman 11 Sean W. McDonald Attorneys for Defendants Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld MARLOU CORP d/b/a CLUB PLATINUM 12 and RITA CAPOVILLA Attorneys for Plaintiffs | LINDA WHEELER and 4 KARISSA ANN HUGH 15 IT IS SO ORDERED.

17 Ly te les Are pat UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE: | Dated: March 25, 2025 NDELSON, P.C.

Pkwy