1

2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5

6 DELLA O., Case No. 2:25-cv-00404-NJK 7 Plaintiff, Order 8 v. [Docket No. 20] 9 FRANK BISIGNANO, 10 Defendant. 11 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for leave to leave to file an amended opening 12 brief. Docket No. 20. Defendant filed a response in opposition. Docket No. 22. Plaintiff did not 13 file a reply. See Docket. The motion is properly resolved without a hearing. See Local Rule 78- 14 1. 15 Plaintiff filed her opening brief on June 4, 2025. Docket No. 11. Defendant filed his 16 response on August 6, 2025. Docket No. 16. Plaintiff filed the instant motion requesting leave to 17 file an amended opening brief on August 22, 2025. Docket No. 20. Plaintiff then filed her reply 18 to Defendant’s response on September 3, 2025. Docket No. 21. Defendant responded in 19 opposition to the instant motion on September 5, 2025. Docket No. 22. 20 In the instant motion, Plaintiff submits that the Ninth Circuit published Obrien v Bisignano, 21

(9th Cir. 2025), on July 1, 2025, which was after Plaintiff filed her opening brief. 22 See Docket No. 20 at 2. Plaintiff requests an opportunity to address Obrien in her opening brief 23 and allow it to be fully briefed by the parties. See

Further, Plaintiff contends that her litigation 24 posture may now have changed because of Obrien, and she would like to consider the resubmission 25 of two arguments which she withdrew from her opening brief to “streamline the adjudication 26 process for the Court.” See id.; see also Docket No. 15. Defendant submits that Plaintiff was able 27 to respond to caselaw cited in Defendant’s response, including the Obrien decision, in her reply. 28 Docket No. 22 at 2. Further, Defendant contends that Plaintiff did respond to his discussion of 1} Obrien in her reply, and that it is not necessary to prolong this litigation further by refiling the 2|| opening brief. /d. Additionally, Defendant opposes Plaintiff’s resubmission of arguments that she 3] withdrew from her initial opening brief. Jd. 4 Given that the Obrien decision was issued after Plaintiff's opening brief was filed and both parties have discussed the decision in their subsequent briefing, the Court finds that both parties 6] should be afforded the opportunity to fully and completely brief these issues. See Lescinsky v. Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist.,

, 1129 n.8 (D. Nev. 2021) (quoting Christian v. Mattel, 8||

, 1129 (9th Cir. 2002) (“The district court has considerable latitude in 9] managing the parties’ motion practice.”)). 10 Accordingly, the instant motion is GRANTED. Docket No. 20. Plaintiff must file her 11} amended opening brief by October 3, 2025. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 Dated: September 29, 2025 ge. Nancy J. Koppe Ky 15 United States Magistrate Judge

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28