Opinion
2:22-cv-01258-GMN-BNW
10-31-2022
COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. DANIEL SHAK, an individual, Defendant.
KAEMPFER CROWELL Robert McCoy, No. 9121 Sihomara L. Graves, No. 13239 STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP Melvin A. Brosterman (pro hac vice) David J. Kahne (pro hac vice) Elizabeth Milburn (pro hac vice) Attorneys for Defendant Daniel L. Shak
KAEMPFER CROWELL
Robert McCoy, No. 9121
Sihomara L. Graves, No. 13239
STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP
Melvin A. Brosterman (pro hac vice)
David J. Kahne (pro hac vice)
Elizabeth Milburn (pro hac vice)
Attorneys for Defendant Daniel L. Shak
UNOPPOSED MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLINE TO FILE REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS
(FIRST REQUEST)
GLORIA M. NAVARRO, DISTRICT JUDGE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT.
Defendant Daniel Shak (“Shak”) moves, pursuant to LR IA 6-1, for a one-week extension-from November 1 until November 8, 2022-to file his reply in support of his October 11, 2022 motion to dismiss (ECF No. 5). This is the first extension sought in connection with this deadline..
Mr. Shak's counsel originally filed this motion on Wednesday, October 26, 2022 (ECF No. 14), but mistakenly did not mark it as an unopposed motion in the Court's CM/ECF system. Mr. Shak is therefore re-filing this motion now and will withdraw the incorrectly filed version.
The basis for this request is that Mr. Shak's counsel have several conflicts over the week between the filing of the opposition brief (ECF No. 13) and the original reply deadline that interfere with their ability to complete the reply brief by the original November 1, 2022 deadline, including: (1) an all-day mediation on October 27, 2022 in another case pending in this District (Cowley v. DePuy Synthes, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-00129-KJD-VCF); and (2) previously scheduled out-of-town travel for the Nevada Day holiday from October 28-31, 2022. Mr. Shak's out-of-state counsel likewise have several conflicting professional obligations necessitating this brief extension.
In an effort to avoid the need for this motion, Mr. Shak requested that plaintiff Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) stipulate to this extension. The CFTC's counsel stated that they do not oppose this request, but they refused to stipulate to it.
For these reasons, Mr. Shak requests the Court extend this reply brief deadline by one week as explained above.
ORDER
IT IS SO ORDERED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Daniel Shak's Motion to Extend Time, ECF No. 14, is DENIED AS MOOT.