Opinion
2:23-cv-00358-ART-BNW A-23-866492-C
04-06-2023
ERIC ATANASOFF, Derivatively on Behalf of CLEANSPARK, INC., Plaintiff, v. ZACHARY K. BRADFORD, S. MATTHEW SCHULTZ, ROGER P. BEYNON, LARRY MCNEILL, and THOMAS L. WOOD, Defendants,
MARK J. CONNOT (10010) COLLEEN E. MCCARTY (13186) FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP Counsel for Defendants Zachary K. Bradford, S. Matthew Schultz, Robert P. Beynon, Larry McNeill, and Thomas L. Wood and Nominal Defendant Cleanspark, Inc. ALDRICH LAW FIRM, LTD. JOHN P. ALDRICH (6877) CATHERINE HERNANDEZ (8410) Counsel for Plaintiffs
(Removal from District Court, Clark County, Nevada, Case No. A-23-866492-C)
MARK J. CONNOT (10010)
COLLEEN E. MCCARTY (13186)
FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP
Counsel for Defendants Zachary K. Bradford, S. Matthew Schultz, Robert P. Beynon, Larry McNeill, and Thomas L. Wood and Nominal Defendant Cleanspark, Inc.
ALDRICH LAW FIRM, LTD.
JOHN P. ALDRICH (6877)
CATHERINE HERNANDEZ (8410)
Counsel for Plaintiffs
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT
BRENDA WEKSLER, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Eric Atanasoff (“Plaintiff”), derivatively on behalf of Nominal Plaintiff CleanSpark, Inc. (“CleanSpark”) and Defendants Zachary K. Bradford, S. Matthew Schultz, Larry McNeill, Thomas L. Wood, Roger P. Beynon (the “Individual Defendants”), and Nominal Defendant CleanSpark (together with the Individual Defendants, “Defendants”) (collectively, with Plaintiff, the “Parties”), by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby enter into the following stipulation and proposed order:
WHEREAS, on March 1, 2023, Plaintiff filed a shareholder derivative complaint (the “Complaint”) on behalf of Nominal Plaintiff CleanSpark in the Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada in and for Clark County (the “State Court”), captioned Atanasoff v. Bradford, et al., Case No. A-23-866492-C (this “Action”); and
WHEREAS, on March 7, 2023, the Defendant S. Matthew Schultz filed a Petition for Removal (ECF No. 1) and Notice of Removal, removing this Action from State Court to the United States District Court for the District of Nevada; and
WHEREAS, on March 24, 2023, the Individual Defendants filed a Motion to Consolidate, asking the Court to consolidate this Action into the consolidated shareholder derivative action pending in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, In re CleanSpark, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Case No. 2:21-cv-01181-GMN-BNW (the “Motion to Consolidate”) (ECF No. 10); and
WHEREAS, on April 4, 2023, Plaintiff filed the Motion to Remand and for Attorney's Fees and Costs, which has been noticed for consideration by the Court in the normal course (the “Motion to Remand”) (ECF No. 11); and
WHEREAS, Defendants intend to move to dismiss the Complaint in this Action; and
WHEREAS, the Parties agree to extend the deadline for Defendants to respond to the Complaint until on or before May 5, 2023; and
WHEREAS, the Parties agree to extend the deadline for Plaintiff to oppose any motion to dismiss the Complaint that Defendants file until on or before June 5, 2023; and
WHEREAS, the Parties agree to extend the deadline for Defendants to reply in support of any motion to dismiss the Complaint until on or before June 26, 2023.
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by the Parties hereto, through their undersigned counsel, subject to the approval of the Court, as follows:
1. Defendants' deadline to respond to the Complaint is extended until on or before May 5, 2023.
2. Plaintiff's deadline to oppose any motion to dismiss the Complaint that Defendants file is extended until on or before June 5, 2023.
3. Defendants' deadline to reply in support of any motion to dismiss the Complaint that Defendants file is extended until on or before June 26, 2023.
4. Other than as agreed herein, the Parties reserve all rights.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that ECF No. 12 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part without prejudice. It is granted to the extent that Defendants deadline to respond to the complaint shall be May 5, 2023. To the extent the parties stipulate to an extended motion to dismiss briefing schedule, they must file a separate motion. See LR IC 2-2(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.