Kangarlou v. Locklear et al, No. 2:2018cv02286 - Document 92 (D. Nev. 2022)
Court Description: ORDER Granting 91 Motion to Extend Case Stay. Discovery is stayed until 1/5/2023. Should any party believe a continued stay is necessary, such request for relief is to be filed by 1/5/2023. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties are to file o ne amended Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order by 1/13/2023. Each party is entitled to include its position on each point that is in dispute. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brenda Weksler on 12/6/2022. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - TRW)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Kangarlou v. Locklear et al Doc. 92 Case 2:18-cv-02286-JAD-BNW Document 92 91 Filed 12/06/22 12/05/22 Page 1 of 6 11 22 33 44 55 66 77 88 9 9 10 10 11 11 12 12 13 13 14 14 15 15 16 16 17 17 18 18 19 19 20 20 21 21 22 22 23 PAUL A. ACKER, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 3670 THOMAS W. MARONEY, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 13913 8925 West Russell Road, Suite 220 Las Vegas, NV 89148 Telephone: (702) 997-3800 Facsimile (702) 997-3800 packer@rlattonrys.com tmaroney@rlattorneys.com Attorneys for Defendants, Lumbee Land Development, Inc., & Lumbee Tribe Holdings, Inc. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA SAEID SAM KANGARLOU, Plaintiffs, JOINT MOTION TO EXTEND CASE STAY v. ALTON AL LOCKLEAR; LUMBEE LAND DEVELOPMENT, INC.; LUMBEE TRIBE HOLDINGS, INC. [SECOND REQUESTED STAY] Defendants. PLAINTIFF, SAIED KANGARLOU, Defendant, ALTON “AL” LOCKLEAR (“Locklear”) and Defendants, LUMBEE LAND DEVELOPMENT, INC. and LUMBEE TRIBE HOLDINGS, INC., by and through their respective counsel, hereby jointly move this Court to extend the current discovery stay in this matter. The Parties have stipulated to extend the stay as detailed in this Motion. Pursuant to LR IA 6-1(b), the Parties aver that this is the second such discovery stay 23 24 requested in this matter. 24 25 /// 25 26 /// 26 27 /// 28 CASE NO.: 2:18-CV-02286-JAD-BNW /// 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:18-cv-02286-JAD-BNW Document 92 91 Filed 12/06/22 12/05/22 Page 2 of 6 11 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 22 I. 33 INTRODUCTION 44 This matter involves claims of personal injury by Saeid Sam Kangarlou (hereinafter 55 “Plaintiff”) from an alleged battery at The Mirage Hotel & Casino on or about December 5, 66 2016. Plaintiff alleges that Alton Locklear attacked him while they were playing at an 77 automated craps machine. Plaintiff alleges he sustained a variety of injuries which required 88 9 9 10 10 11 11 12 12 13 13 14 14 15 15 16 16 17 17 18 18 19 19 20 20 21 21 22 22 23 significant treatment. On March 5, 2021, this Court entered a Scheduling Order setting a discovery deadline for August 17, 2021. On September 10, 2022, this Court entered an Order extending the discovery deadlines with discovery closing on February 14, 2022. Since that time, the Parties have been diligently conducting discovery. On February 4, 2022, Defendants filed a Joint Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement. As a result of the pending settlement, the Parties did not complete discovery. On August 11, 2022, the Court issued a Report and Recommendations denying the Motion to Enforce. Following this ruling, Plaintiff and Defendants both filed Motions requesting that this Court stay this matter as Plaintiff was scheduled to undergo brain surgery. [ECF Nos. 87 and 89]. The Court granted the stay and ordered the Parties to follow-up on or before December 5, 2022 to advise whether a second stay would be necessary given Plaintiff’s health. As such, the Parties file the instant motion to inform the Court that Plaintiff is still recovering from his health issues and the stay in this matter should be extended until January 5, 2023. II. STATEMENT OF FACTS 23 24 24 25 25 26 26 27 1. On or about December 5, 2016, Plaintiff was a guest at The Mirage Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas, Nevada. See Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint [ECF No. 12]. At approximately 7:00 p.m., Plaintiff sat down at an automated craps machine located on the 28 2 Case 2:18-cv-02286-JAD-BNW Document 92 91 Filed 12/06/22 12/05/22 Page 3 of 6 11 casino floor and began playing. Id. Plaintiff continued to play the craps machine with many 22 other guests for several hours. Id. 33 2. The Amended Complaint alleges that at approximately 11:00 p.m., Alton 44 Locklear, allegedly sat down and began playing craps at the same automated craps machine 55 where Plaintiff was playing for several hours. Id. While playing craps, Mr. Locklear allegedly 66 consumed multiple alcoholic beverages and became inebriated. Id. 77 hundreds of dollars gambling, Mr. Locklear became aggressive with Plaintiff. Id. Mr. Locklear 88 9 9 10 10 11 11 12 12 13 13 14 14 15 15 16 16 17 17 18 18 19 19 20 20 21 21 22 22 23 allegedly blamed Plaintiff for his gambling losses. Id. at 4. Then, without warning, Mr. Locklear 23 24 24 25 25 26 26 27 After allegedly losing allegedly punched Plaintiff in the face and knocked him to the ground. Id. Mr. Locklear then allegedly jumped onto Plaintiff's back and continued striking Plaintiff in the head until another patron stopped Mr. Locklear. Id. 3. Due to the alleged attack, Plaintiff alleges he sustained injuries “to his face, head, hands, knee, back, tooth, ribs, stomach, and chest.” Id. Plaintiff also had complaints of blurred vision. Id. Based upon these alleged injuries, emergency medical services transported Plaintiff to Sunrise Hospital where he underwent treatment. Id. After doctors released him from the hospital, Plaintiff continued to undergo treatment and met with several specialists due to his alleged injuries. Id. 4. At the time of the alleged attack Mr. Locklear was allegedly representing the Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina at the 2016 National American Indian Housing Counsel's annual symposium at The Mirage. Id. at 3. Additionally, Mr. Locklear was also allegedly representing Lumbee Land Development, Inc. Id. Finally, Lumbee Tribe Holdings, Inc. allegedly sponsored Mr. Locklear's trip. Id. On or about December 22, 2021, Plaintiff contacted Defendant’s counsel indicating that wanted to pursue settlement in this case. 5. On March 5, 2021, this Court entered a Scheduling Order setting a discovery deadline for August 17, 2021. [ECF No. 46]. The Court further stayed discovery in this matter until May 4, 2021, due to Plaintiffs refusal to participate in the Rule 26(f) Conference and 28 3 Case 2:18-cv-02286-JAD-BNW Document 92 91 Filed 12/06/22 12/05/22 Page 4 of 6 11 ordered Plaintiff to file a notice with the Court stating whether he intends to continue 22 prosecuting his claims. Id. at 7. 33 44 55 6. On September 10, 2022, this Court entered an Order extending the discovery deadlines with discovery closing on February 14, 2022. [ECF No. 81]. 7. On February 4, 2022, Defendants filed a Joint Motion to Enforce Settlement 66 Agreement (“Motion To Enforce”). [ECF No. 83]. On August 11, 2022, the Court issued a 77 Report and Recommendations denying the Motion to Enforce. [ECF No. 86]. 88 9 9 10 10 11 11 12 12 13 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 8. On August 25, 2022 the Parties filed Motions to Stay this matter as Plaintiff was scheduled to undergo brain surgery. [ECF No. 87 and 89] 9. On September 6, 2022, this Court granted the Parties stay and informed the Parties that if additional time was necessary for Plaintiff to recuperate that the Parties should submit a request by no later than December 5, 2022. [ECF No. 90] 10. On October 6, 2022, Plaintiff underwent surgery for removal of a pituitary brain tumor and a deviated septum. (See, correspondence from Plaintiff to Defendants dated December 1, 2022, a true and correct copy is attached hereto as Exhibit “1”). 11. On December 5, 2022, because of additional health issues, Plaintiff requested that Defendants agree to stay this matter for an additional thirty (30) days. (Id.). III. MOTION TO EXTEND STAY “A district court has discretionary power to stay proceedings in its own court under Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936).” Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1109 (9th Cir. 2005). In deciding whether to grant a stay, the Ninth Circuit weighs “the competing interests which will be affected[.]” Id. (quoting CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962)). These factors include: (1) “the possible damage which may result from the granting of a stay”; (2) “the hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in being required to go forward”; and (3) “the orderly course of justice measured in terms of the simplifying or 28 4 Case 2:18-cv-02286-JAD-BNW Document 92 91 Filed 12/06/22 12/05/22 Page 5 of 6 11 complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law which could be expected to result from a 22 stay.” Id. 33 Damage would not result from this stay. This Court previously granted the stay for this 44 matter as Plaintiff was scheduled to undergo brain surgery. Plaintiff in fact underwent two 55 surgeries on October 6, 2022 and has since been recovering. Following these surgeries, in early 66 December 2022, the Parties stipulated to stay this matter to permit Plaintiff additional time to 77 recover. As such, no Parties would be damaged by continuing the stay. 88 9 9 10 10 11 11 12 12 13 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 Plaintiff would face hardship if the stay were not extended. Plaintiff is still recovering from his October 2022 surgeries. Additionally, Plaintiff is also under observation for another health issue and was advised that he may need surgery. Thus, Plaintiff will experience hardship if the Court denies the requested stay and is forced to litigate this matter through his health issues. This forced participation would also certainly prejudice Plaintiff and his abilities to prosecute his claims. The stay would promote an orderly course of justice. As I am sure this Court is aware, Plaintiff is representing himself in this matter. To promote justice, Plaintiff needs to be healthy and capable of participating in litigation. By granting the requested stay, this Court would be promoting justice by providing Plaintiff with ample time to heal so that he may effectively represent himself. /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// 28 5 Case 2:18-cv-02286-JAD-BNW Document 92 91 Filed 12/06/22 12/05/22 Page 6 of 6 11 IV. 22 CONCLUSION 33 44 Based upon the foregoing points and authorities, the Parties respectfully request that the Court stay discovery for an additional thirty (30) days until January 5, 2023. 55 IT IS SO STIPULATED. 66 DATED this 5th day of December, 2022. DATED this 5th day of December, 2022. 77 ALBRIGHT, STODDARD, WARNICK & RESNICK & LOUIS, P.C. 88 9 9 10 10 11 11 12 12 13 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 ALBRIGHT /s/ Daniel R. Ormsby, Esq. /s/ Thomas W. Maroney, Esq. ________________________________ G. MARK ALBRIGHT, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 001394 JORGE L. ALVAREZ, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 014466 DANIEL R. ORMSBY, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 014595 801 South Rancho Drive, Suite D-4 Las Vegas, Nevada 89106 T: (702) 384-7111 / F: (702) 384-0605 gma@albrightstoddard.com jalvarez@albrightstoddard.com dormsby@albrightstoddard.com Attorneys for Defendant, Alton Locklear ___________________________ PAUL A. ACKER, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 3670 THOMAS MARONEY, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 13913 packer@rlattorneys.com tmaroney@rlattorneys.com 8925 West Russell Road, Suite 220 Las Vegas, NV 89148 T: (702) 997-3800 / F: (702) 997-3800 Attorneys for Defendants, Lumbee Land Development, Inc., & Lumbee Tribe Holdings, Inc. /s/ Saied Kangarlou ________________________________ PLAINTIFF, SAIED KANGARLOU ORDER IT IS ORDERD that ECF No. 91 is GRANTED. Discovery is stayed until January 5, 2023. Should any party believe a continued stay is necessary, such request for relief is to be filed by January 5, 2023. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties are to file one amended Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order by January 13, 2023. Each party is entitled to include its position on each point that is in dispute. IT IS SO ORDERED DATED: 4:03 pm, December 06, 2022 28 BRENDA WEKSLER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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.
