Pittman et al v. Westgate Planet Hollywood Las Vegas, LLC et al, No. 2:2009cv00878 - Document 205 (D. Nev. 2011)
Court Description: ORDER granting Joint 201 Motion to Extend Deadlines. Discovery due by 8/22/2011. Motions due by 9/23/2011. Proposed Joint Pretrial Order due by 10/24/2011. Signed by Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr on 4/15/11. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ECS)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Pittman et al v. Westgate Planet Hollywood Las Vegas, LLC et al 1 2 3 4 Doc. 205 JAMES E. SMYTH II Nevada Bar No. 6506 Kaempfer Crowell Renshaw Gronauer & Fiorentino 3800 Howard Hughes Parkway, Seventh Floor Las Vegas, Nevada 89169 Telephone: (702) 792-7000 Fax: (702) 796-7181 jsmyth@kcnvlaw.com 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 RICHARD W. EPSTEIN MYRNA L. MAYSONET BRANDON J. HILL (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) GREENSPOON MARDER, P.A. Trade Center South, Suite 700 100 West Cypress Creek Road Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33309 Telephone: (888) 491-1120 Facsimile: (954) 771-9264 richard.epstein@gmlaw.com myrna.maysonet@gmlaw.com brandon.hill@gmlaw.com Attorneys for Defendants 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 14 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 15 16 17 DEBRA PITTMAN, ROSALYNE R. SMITH, MARKOS MENDOZA, RINEO VLIJTER, EDITH MARSHALL, and MOHAMED SABRO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, 18 19 JOINT MOTION TO EXTEND ALL REMAINING DEADLINES (Second Request) vs. 20 Case No. 2:09-cv-00878-PMP-GWF WESTGATE PLANET HOLLYWOOD LAS VEGAS, LLC, WESTGATE RESORTS, INC., WESTGATE RESORTS, LTD., CFI SALES & MARKETING, LTD., CFI SALES & MARKETING, LLC, CFI SALES & MARKETING, INC., DAVID A. SIEGEL, RICHARD SIEGEL and “John Doe” entities 1 to 25, name and number unknown, 21 22 23 24 Defendants. Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:09-cv-00878-PMP-GWF Document 201 Filed 04/08/11 Page 2 of 6 1 Defendants, Westgate Planet Hollywood Las Vegas, LLC, Westgate Resorts, Inc., 2 Westgate Resorts, Ltd., CFI Sales & Marketing, Ltd., CFI Sales & Marketing, LLC and CFI 3 Sales & Marketing, Inc., Richard Siegel and David Siegel (“Defendants”), and Plaintiffs 4 (collectively “the Parties”), by and through their attorneys of record, pursuant to LR-6-1 and LR- 5 26-4, file this Joint Motion requesting this Court extend the discovery deadline and all other 6 remaining deadlines. RELEVANT FACTS 7 1. 8 9 10 Nevada. Plaintiffs’ original Complaint included causes of action for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and Nevada labor laws. (Doc. 1, p. 2). 2. 11 12 Plaintiffs filed this action on April 16, 2009 in the District Court of Clark County, On September 1, 2009, Magistrate Judge George Foley issued an Order setting the discovery deadline and other critical deadlines. (Doc. 40). 3. 13 Following entry of the September 2009 original Scheduling Order, the procedural 14 posture of this case changed dramatically due, in large part, to the filing of Plaintiffs’ Motion for 15 Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 147), Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File a Counterclaim 16 (Doc. 152), and Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Class Certification under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23. (Doc. 17 151). 18 4. As a result of these filings, in a Joint Stipulation filed on June 16, 2010 (Doc. 19 157), the parties asked the Court to extend all deadlines set forth in the September 2009 original 20 Scheduling Order. The Court approved the parties Joint Stipulation on June 18, 2010, and 21 entered a new Scheduling Order. (Doc. 159). 22 23 24 5. Those deadlines controlled until the Court denied Plaintiffs’ Motion for Rule 23 Class Certification. (Doc. 184). As a result, on November 15, 2010 Plaintiff petitioned the Case 2:09-cv-00878-PMP-GWF Document 201 Filed 04/08/11 Page 3 of 6 Joint Motion to Extend All Deadlines Case No. 2:09-cv-00878-PMP-GWF 1 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for permission to appeal the Court’s Order denying Plaintiffs’ 2 Motion for Partial Class Certification. (See Doc. 191). 3 6. Concurrently with the filing of their Petition to the Ninth Circuit, Plaintiffs filed 4 an unopposed Motion to stay all proceedings in this action pending the disposition of their 5 Petition filed with Ninth Circuit (see Doc. 189). This Court granted Plaintiffs’ Motion and all 6 proceedings in this action were stayed as of November 18, 2010. (Doc. 192). The deadlines that 7 were stayed included the discovery deadline, deadline to disclose experts and rebuttal experts, 8 dispositive motion deadline, and the deadline to file a joint pretrial order. 9 7. Plaintiffs’ Petition was denied. On March 21, 2011 the Court lifted the stay and 10 issued an order mandating that the parties complete “any remaining discovery within 90 days” 11 (June 20, 2011). (Doc. 197). The Parties were also ordered to file a proposed joint pretrial order 12 by July 29, 2011. 13 8. As this Court is aware, counsel for both parties are also involved in another 14 similar large-scale FLSA conditionally certified collective action case also pending before this 15 Court, styled Davis, et al. v. Westgate Planet Hollywood Las Vegas, LLC, et al., Case No.: 2:08- 16 cv-00722-RCJ–PAL. 17 9. Throughout the combined years of litigating this case, and Davis, the parties have 18 worked diligently to resolve many of the discovery issues that they have encountered in both 19 cases. The issues, and difficulties, presented in both cases are similar. The parties believe that 20 many of the discovery-related production and expert deadline problems experienced in Davis can 21 be avoided here if the Court allows the parties additional time to conduct discovery, and expert 22 discovery. 23 24 Page 3 Case 2:09-cv-00878-PMP-GWF Document 201 Filed 04/08/11 Page 4 of 6 Joint Motion to Extend All Deadlines Case No. 2:09-cv-00878-PMP-GWF 1 10. Both this case and Davis involve voluminous computer data, payroll records, and 2 related information which makes litigating and managing these cases extremely cumbersome and 3 time consuming. In the Davis action, the parties have gone to great lengths to resolve discovery 4 disputes on their own which, in many instances, has required additional time for each side’s 5 expert witnesses to examine data and point out problems either with the data, or with the other 6 side’s interpretation of the produced-data. In the past, this process has resulted in a number of 7 discovery-related compromises. The parties did this with some success in the Davis case. And, 8 they plan on doing so here. 9 11. One of the issues that will have a dispositive impact on this case will be the 10 eligibility of the entire putative class to pursue an actionable FLSA claim. For example, a review 11 of records have indicated that at least 45 out of the 376 individuals in this action may not have 12 actionable FLSA claims because: (1) claims if any, fell outside the 3 year statute of limitation 13 from their opt-in date; or (2) they did not hold the approved positions defined by the Court 14 during the relevant time. 15 remainder of the class all periods which may be excludable from this lawsuit as the respective 16 opt-in Plaintiff did not hold the court approved position or was not working for the company at 17 that time. This process is a difficult and time consuming task as Defendants have to manually 18 review thousands of documents to create these positions lists and to ascertain the “excludable 19 periods.” Defendants have commenced this process but it will not be able to be completed in 20 time for the expert disclosure deadlines which will be 60 (April 22, 2011) and 30 days (May 23, 21 2011) respectively, as these deadlines were not specifically identified in the Court’s Order. This 22 information will be crucial for the experts to create an accurate damage report and will 23 streamline potential dispositive issues ahead. Likewise, there are a number of individuals for 24 Page 4 Defendants also are in the process of trying to identify for the Case 2:09-cv-00878-PMP-GWF Document 201 Filed 04/08/11 Page 5 of 6 Joint Motion to Extend All Deadlines Case No. 2:09-cv-00878-PMP-GWF 1 which no information is available. 2 Plaintiffs on March 30, 2011 and the parties are working cooperatively to resolve these issues. 3 12. 4 Defendants have already addressed these issues with Therefore, the parties propose that the Court modify the current Scheduling Order as follows: 5 a. Discovery deadline: August 22, 2011 (currently expires on June 20, 2011); 6 b. Last date to disclose experts pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2): Sixty (60) days prior to the discovery deadline; 7 c. Last date to disclose rebuttal experts: Thirty (30) days after Plaintiffs’ 8 disclosure of expert and report(s); 9 10 d. Last date to file dispositive motions: September 23, 2011; 11 e. Last date to file joint pretrial order: October 24, 2011; and 12 f. In the event additional dispositive motions are filed, the date for filing the 13 joint pretrial order shall be suspended until 30 days after the entry of an Order 14 by the Court on the last of all filed dispositive motions. 15 13. Pursuant to LR 26-4, the following discovery has been conducted : The Plaintiffs 16 have propounded Interrogatories, Requests to Produce and Requests for Admission on 17 Defendants. 18 Plaintiffs. 19 Defendants will seek to depose certain Opt-In Plaintiffs after they receive their written discovery 20 responses. The parties need additional time to take depositions, including critical expert witness 21 depositions. 22 23 24 14. Defendants have propounded Interrogatories and Requests to Produce on all Plaintiffs have noticed for deposition certain Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(b)(6) topics. As stated above, discovery was not completed because the proceedings in this case were stayed pending the disposition of Plaintiffs’ Petition for Review to the Ninth Circuit. Page 5 Joint Motion to Extend All Deadlines Case No. 2:09-cv-00878-PMP-GWF 1 15. 2 WHEREFORE, the parties respectfully request that the Court extend all deadlines as set 3 This Joint Motion is timely and will not unduly delay this matter. forth above. 4 DATED this 8th day of April, 2011. 5 By: 6 7 s/Leon Greenberg A Professional Corporation 633 South 4th Street, Suite 4 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 Attorney for Plaintiffs By: 8 9 10 11 15 DATED: April ____, 2011. s/Myrna L. Maysonet RICHARD W. EPSTEIN (Admitted pro hac vice, Florida Bar No.:0229091) MYRNA L. MAYSONET (Admitted pro hac vice, Florida Bar No.: 0429650) Greenspoon Marder, P.A. 201 E. Pine Street, Suite 500 Orlando, FL 32801 Attorneys for Defendants IT IS SO ORDERED 12 _________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT/ GEORGE FOLEY, JR. MAGISTRATEMagistrate Judge United States JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 5249051 v1 24 Page 6
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
