Opinion
2:22-cv-00305-JAD-VCF
04-18-2022
KIMBERLY BERNARD, Derivatively on Behalf of MARATHON DIGITAL HOLDINGS, INC. (f/k/a MARATHON PATENT GROUP, INC.), Plaintiff, v. FRED THIEL, GEORGES ANTOUN, KEVIN DENUCCIO, SARITA JAMES, JAY LEUPP, SAID OUISSAL, MERRICK D. OKAMOTO, and SIMEON SALZMAN, Defendants, and MARATHON DIGITAL HOLDINGS, INC. (f/k/a MARATHON PATENT GROUP, INC.), Nominal Defendant.
PISANELLI BICE PLLC James J. Pisanelli, Bar No. 4027 Debra L. Spinelli, Bar No. 9695 Jonathan D. Polkes (pro hac vice pending) Stephen A. Radin (pro hac vice pending) Caroline Hickey Zalka (pro hac vice pending) WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP Attorneys for Defendants Georges Antoun, Kevin DeNuccio, Sarita James, Jay Leupp, Merrick D. Okamoto, Said Ouissal, Simeon Salzman, and Fred Thiel, and Nominal Defendant Marathon Digital Holdings, Inc. MATTHEW L. SHARP, LTD. Matthew L. Sharp, Bar No. 4746 Gregory M. Egleston GAINEY McKENNA & EGLESTON Attorneys for Plaintiff Kimberly Bernard
PISANELLI BICE PLLC James J. Pisanelli, Bar No. 4027 Debra L. Spinelli, Bar No. 9695 Jonathan D. Polkes (pro hac vice pending) Stephen A. Radin (pro hac vice pending) Caroline Hickey Zalka (pro hac vice pending) WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP Attorneys for Defendants Georges Antoun, Kevin DeNuccio, Sarita James, Jay Leupp, Merrick D. Okamoto, Said Ouissal, Simeon Salzman, and Fred Thiel, and Nominal Defendant Marathon Digital Holdings, Inc.
MATTHEW L. SHARP, LTD. Matthew L. Sharp, Bar No. 4746 Gregory M. Egleston GAINEY McKENNA & EGLESTON Attorneys for Plaintiff Kimberly Bernard
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO SET BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON MOTION TO DISMISS (FIRST REQUEST)
Richard E. Boulware, II United States District Court 1
Defendants Fred Thiel, Georges Antoun, Kevin DeNuccio, Sarita James, Jay Leupp, Said Ouissal, Merrick D. Okamoto, Simeon Salzman (collectively, “Defendants”), Nominal Defendant Marathon Digital Holdings, Inc. (“Marathon”), and Plaintiff Kimberly Bernard (“Plaintiff”), by and through their respective counsel, and subject to this Court's approval, agree to a briefing schedule on Defendants' and Nominal Defendant's motion to dismiss. This is the first request to set a briefing schedule in this action.
1. On February 18, 2022, Plaintiff filed her Complaint (ECF No. 1);
2. On March 25, 2022, service was effected by stipulation (ECF No. 6);
3. On April 4, 2022, Defendants and Nominal Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint (ECF No. 13);
4. The parties have agreed to the following briefing schedule:
a. Plaintiff's response to the motion to dismiss is due on May 31, 2022;
b. Defendants' and Nominal Defendant's reply is due on June 30, 2022;
5. This Stipulation is made in good faith, with good cause, and not for purposes of unduly delaying discovery or trial.2
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, based on the parties' stipulation above, Plaintiff shall file her response to the motion to dismiss on or before May 31, 2022, and Defendants and Nominal Defendant shall file their reply on or before June 30, 2022.
IT IS SO ORDERED. 3