Clean Vision Corp. v. Percy

Full title: CLEAN VISION CORPORATION, a Nevada corporation, Plaintiff, v. CHRISTOPHER…

Court: United States District Court, District of Nevada

Date published: Jan 27, 2023

2:22-cv-01862-ART-NJK (D. Nev. Jan. 27, 2023)

Opinion

2:22-cv-01862-ART-NJK

01-27-2023

CLEAN VISION CORPORATION, a Nevada corporation, Plaintiff, v. CHRISTOPHER PERCY, an individual; DOES I through X, inclusive; and ROE CORPORATIONS I through X, inclusive, Defendant. CHRISTOPHER PERCY, an individual, Counterclaimant, v. CLEAN VISION CORPORATION, a Nevada corporation, Counterdefendant. CHRISTOPHER PERCY, an individual, Third-Party Plaintiff v. DANIEL BATES, an individual; DOES I through X, inclusive, Third-Party Defendants.

Marquis Aurbach Brian R. Hardy, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 10068 Alexander K. Calaway, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 15188 Harry L. Arnold, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 15866 Attorneys for Plaintiff/Counter defendant LEWIS ROCA ROTHGERBER CHRISTIE By: Dan Waite, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 4078 Stephen Steele, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 13965 Attorneys for Mr. Percy

Marquis Aurbach Brian R. Hardy, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 10068 Alexander K. Calaway, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 15188 Harry L. Arnold, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 15866 Attorneys for Plaintiff/Counter defendant

LEWIS ROCA ROTHGERBER CHRISTIE By: Dan Waite, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 4078 Stephen Steele, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 13965 Attorneys for Mr. Percy

STIPULATION AND ORDER EXTENDING THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT DANIEL BATES' RESPONSIVE DEADLINE (FIRST REQUEST)

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between third-party defendant Daniel Bates (“Bates”), plaintiff/counterdefendant Clean Vision Corporation (“CLNV”), and defendant/counterclaimant/third-party plaintiff Christopher Percy (“Percy”), by and through their respective counsel, that:

1. Mr. Bates' responsive pleading to Percy's third-party claims [ECF No. 18], which was served on January 4, 2023 [ECF No. 40], is currently due on January 25, 2023, but is now due on or before February 1, 2023.

2. Pursuant to LR IA 6-1(a), the extension is needed given Mr. Bates is still in the process of formally retaining the undersigned counsel Marquis Aurbach.

3. This stipulation was made before the expiration of the specified period to respond to the Third-Party Claims, however, for the avoidance of doubt, any failure to file a responsive pleading before the deadline expired was the result of excusable neglect pursuant to LR IA 6-1(a).

4. This is Mr. Bates' first extension of time to file a responsive pleading.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

ORDER

IT IS SO ORDERED