Opinion
2:23-cv-00713-RFB-NJK
08-24-2023
ARGONAUT INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff v. PAYSIGN, INC., MARK R. NEWCOMER, MARK ATTINGER, DANIEL R. HENRY, JOAN M. HERMAN, BRUCE A. MINA, DANIEL H. SPENCE, DENNIS TRIPLETT, and QUINN WILLIAMS, Defendants
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP Jeffrey D. Olster Attorneys for Plaintiff ARGONAUT INSURANCE COMPANY. LEMONS, GRUNDY & EISENBERG, PC Christian L. Moore Attorneys for Defendants PAYSIGN, INC., MARK R. NEWCOMER, MARK ATTINGER, DANIEL R. HENRY, JOAN M. HERMAN, BRUCE A. MINA, DANIEL H. SPENCE, DENNIS TRIPLETT and QUINN WILLIAMS.
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP Jeffrey D. Olster Attorneys for Plaintiff ARGONAUT INSURANCE COMPANY.
LEMONS, GRUNDY & EISENBERG, PC Christian L. Moore Attorneys for Defendants PAYSIGN, INC., MARK R. NEWCOMER, MARK ATTINGER, DANIEL R. HENRY, JOAN M. HERMAN, BRUCE A. MINA, DANIEL H. SPENCE, DENNIS TRIPLETT and QUINN WILLIAMS.
STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME FOR DEFENDANTS TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT (THIRD REQUEST)
Pursuant to LR IA 6-1 and LR 7-1, the parties, through their respective counsel, stipulate to extend the time for Defendants to file their response to Plaintiff's Complaint for Declaratory Relief (ECF No. 1). The parties submit that good cause exists for this stipulation based on the following:
1. Plaintiff filed its Complaint on May 5, 2023 (ECF No. 1).
2. The Complaint was served on defendant Paysign, Inc. on or about June 7, 2023.
3. Subsequent to this initial service, attorney Brian G. Friel, who represents Paysign, Inc., advised that his office will be among the attorneys representing all Defendants, and agreed to accept service of the Complaint on behalf of all remaining unserved Defendants.
4. As part of this procedural cooperation between the parties, the parties initially agreed that all Defendants will have until July 28, 2023 to respond to the Complaint, and the parties submitted a stipulation to this effect (ECF No. 17).
5. Since that time, the parties have been actively engaged in discussions regarding the merits of the issues raised in the Complaint in an attempt to avoid the time and expense of further litigation. To facilitate these ongoing discussions, the parties agreed that an additional 30-day extension for Defendants to respond to the Complaint would be mutually beneficial. The parties stipulated to this extension, which provided Defendants with an extension to respond to the Complaint to August 28, 2023. (ECF No. 19).
6. The parties continue to actively engage in settlement discussions. However, an agreement has not yet been reached. The parties agree that an additional 30-day extension will be mutually beneficial to continue to facilitate the ongoing settlement dialogue. The parties therefore agree and respectfully submit that good cause exists for an additional 30-day extension, or to September 27, 2023, for Defendants to respond to the Complaint.
7. This stipulation constitutes the parties' third requested extension of time.
IT IS SO ORDERED.