Case Information
*1 TRAVIS F. CHANCE, ESQ., Nevada Bar No. 13800 EMILY L. DYER, ESQ., Nevada Bar No. 14512 BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK, LLP
Telephone: 702.382.2101
Facsimile: 702.382.8135
RICHARD ROSENBERG, ESQ. (admitted pro hac vice )
rrosenberg@brgslaw.com DAVID FISHMAN, ESQ. (admitted pro hac vice ALEXIS CIRKINYAN, ESQ. (admitted BALLARD ROSENBERG GOLPER & SAVITT, LLP
Telephone: 818.508.3700
Attorneys for Defendants DTG Las Vegas, LLC;
Fifth Street Gaming, LLC; and DTG Las Vegas Manager, LLC
dba Downtown Grand Hotel & Casino
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA CASE NO.: 2:23-cv-00510-APG-NJK OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
vs. JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER
CONTINUING STAY OF ACTION DTG LAS VEGAS, LLC; FIFTH STREET PENDING FINAL TERMS OF CONSENT
GAMING, LLC; AND DTG LAS VEGAS DECREE
MANAGER, LLC dba DOWNTOWN
GRAND HOTEL & CASINO, and DOES 1-
10, inclusive,
Defendants. / / /
*2
Plaintiff United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“Plaintiff” or
“EEOC”) and Defendants DTG Las Vegas, LLC, DTG Las Vegas Manager, LLC, and Fifth Street
Gaming, LLC (collectively, “Defendants”) (Defendants and Plaintiffs collectively, “the Parties”),
by and through their respective counsel of record, hereby stipulate and agree as follows:
1. On August 11, 2023, the Parties submitted a First Amended Stipulation and Order
requesting the Court temporarily stay the action pending mediation. (ECF No. 22).
2. On August 15, 2023, the Honorable Nancy J. Koppe, United States Magistrate Judge,
granted the Parties’ request and stayed the action until November 15, 2023. (ECF No.
24).
3. Per Judge Koppe’s Order, the Parties were to file a Joint Status Report by November 15,
2023. (ECF No. 24).
4. The Parties attended private, in-person Mediation with Sonya D. Goodwin on November
8, 2023 and settled the monetary portion of the action.
5. On November 15, 2023, the Parties submitted a Joint Status Report updating the Court
of the successful mediation, informing the Court that the Parties were in the process of
finalizing the terms of a Consent Decree, and requesting an additional stay of 45 days.
(EFC No. 27) On November 16, 2023, the Honorable Nancy J. Koppe, United States Magistrate Judge,
granted the requested stay which was extended to January 2, 2024. (Docket Entry No.
28) On January 2, 2024, the Parties submitted a Joint Stipulation and Order requesting the
Court continue to stay the action for 45 days to allow the parties to finalize the terms of
the Consent Decree. (Docket Entry No. 29) On January 3, 2024, the Honorable Nancy J. Koppe, United States Magistrate Judge,
granted the requested stay which was extended to February 16, 2024. (Docket Entry No.
30) The Parties have been and continue to be diligently working to finalize the terms of the
Consent Decree but require additional time to resolve the final outstanding issues. The *3 Parties expect the Consent Decree will be finalized and submitted to the Court for review
and approval within the next 15 days. To allow the Parties time to finalize the terms of a Consent Decree, the Parties hereby
stipulate and agree that all court proceedings and deadlines, including the requirements
of LR 26-1 and FRCP 26(a)(1), should be stayed for an additional 30 days. The Court has the power to continue to stay the proceedings as part of its inherent power
“to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort
for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co. , 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936).
In deciding whether to grant a stay, a court may weigh the “competing interests of the
parties and of the Court.” Coker v. Dowd , No. 2:13-CV-0994-JCM-NJK, 2013 WL
12216682, at *1 (D. Nev. July 8, 2013). The competing interests that may be considered
include “the possible damage which may result from the granting of a stay, the hardship
or inequity which a party may suffer in being required to go forward, and the orderly
course of justice measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof,
and questions of law which could be expected to result from a stay.” CMAX, Inc. v. Hall ,
300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962). The Parties submit that the competing interests weigh in favor of continuing the stay.
The stay will promote judicial economy and allow this Court to more effectively control
the disposition of the cases on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for
counsel, and the litigants. Given that this case has settled pending the Parties finalizing
the terms of a Consent Decree and no deadlines or trial date have been set supports a
continuation of the stay to allow the Parties an opportunity to finalize the terms of a
Consent Decree and submit it to the Court for review and approval. This will save the
Parties from having to incur additional, potentially unnecessary litigation costs. This stipulation is entered in good faith, is reasonably necessary, and is not sought for
the purposes of delay. *4 This is the Parties’ fifth request to stay this proceeding. IT IS SO STIPULATED.
Respectfully submitted,
DATED: February 15, 2024 DATED: February 15, 2024
BY: /s/ Taylor Markey B ROWNSTEIN H YATT F ARBER S CHRECK , LLP BY: /s/ Travis F. Chance Taylor Markey
EEOC Assistant Regional Attorney Travis F. Chance, Esq., NV Bar No. 13800
Attorney for Plaintiff Emily L. Dyer, Esq., NV Bar No. 14512 OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
The stipulation at Docket No. 32 is GRANTED. The stipulation at Docket No. 31 is DENIED as moot.
BY: /s/ David Fishman David Fishman, Esq. (admitted Richard Rosenberg, Esq. (admitted pro hac vice)
rrosenberg@brgslaw.com Alexis Cirkinyan, Esq. (admitted pro hac vice BALLARD ROSENBERG GOLPER &
SAVITT, LLP Attorneys for Defendants DTG Las Vegas, LLC, Fifth Street Gaming, LLC, and DTG Las Vegas Manager, LLC dba Downtown Grant Hotel & Casino ORDER February 20, 2024 IT IS SO ORDERED . _____________________________________________ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Dated: ________________