# JKG Fitness, Inc. v. Brown & Brown of Colorado, Inc.

> District Court, D. Nevada · December 11, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10761570

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, D. Nevada
- **Decided:** December 11, 2024
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10761570

## Opinion text

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA
3 JKG Fitness, Inc.,
2:23-cv-01800-JAD-MDC
4 Plaintiff(s),
ORDER:
5 vs. GRANTING MOTION (ECF No. 33) and
DENYING STIPULATION (ECF No. 37) AS
6 Brown & Brown of Colorado, Inc., et al,
MOOT
7 Defendant(s).
8 Pending before the Court are a Motion for Extension of Time (“Motion”) (ECF No. 33) by
9 defendant Brown & Brown of Colorado, Inc. and a Stipulation for Extension of Time (“Stipulation”)
10 (ECF No. 37). For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS the Motion and DENIES the
11 Stipulation as moot.
12 DISCUSSION
13 Defendant Brown & Brown of Colorado, Inc seeks to both extend and reopen discovery
14 deadlines. ECF No. 33. Plaintiff opposes defendant’s Motion. ECF No. 35.
15 A request to extend discovery deadlines must include a statement specifying the discovery
16 completed, a specific description of the discovery that remains, the reasons why the subject deadline
17 cannot be met, and a proposed schedule for completing the outstanding discovery. Local Rule (“LR”)
18 26-3. To prevail on a request to amend a scheduling order under Rule 16(b), a movant must establish
19 good cause. See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 608-09 (9th Cir. 1992). The good
20 cause analysis turns on whether the subject deadlines cannot reasonably be met despite the exercise of
21 diligence. Id. at 609. “The showing of diligence is measured by the conduct displayed throughout the
22 entire period of time already allowed.” Williams v. James River Grp. Inc., 627 F. Supp. 3d 1172, 1177
23 (D. Nev. 2022).
24 Defendant asserts that it has been diligent in pursuing discovery and that good cause exists to
25 extend the discovery deadlines. Defendant argues that third-party discovery is relevant to its affirmative
1 || defenses. ECF No. 33 at 5-6. Defendant further argues that the remaining discovery cannot be completed
2 || within the current deadlines. /d. at 7. The Court finds that good cause exists to extend and reopen the
3 || discovery deadlines.
4 Therefore, the Court will adopt defendant’s proposed new deadlines. The new discovery
5 || deadlines will be as follows:
6 e Amending the Pleadings and Adding Parties: January 28, 2025;
7 e Rebuttal Expert Disclosures: March 13, 2025;
8 e Disclosure Closes: May 1, 2025;
9 e Dispositive Motions: June 26, 2025;
10 e Pre-Trial Order, if no Dispositive Motions: July 29, 2025
11 || If dispositive motions are filed, the deadline for filing the joint pretrial order will be suspended until 30
12 || days after decision on the dispositive motions or further court order.
13
14 ACCORDINGLY,
15 IT IS ORDERED that:
16 1. The Motion for Extension of Time (ECF No. 33) is GRANTED.
M7 2. The Stipulation for Extension of Time (ECF No. 37) is DENIED AS MOOT.
18
19
20 DATED this 11" day of December 2024.
21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4p _
Yi & □

23 Hog Manimiligh’ D lier □
UMited States ey Judge
25

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10761570. Public record. Not legal advice.