Opinion
2:21-CV-01160-JCM-VCF
01-21-2022
CIELO JEAN “CJ” GIBSON, EMMA GLOVER, JULIANNE KLAREN, LINA POSADA, MELANIE IGLESIAS, SANDRA VALENCIA, and VIDA GUERRA, Plaintiffs, v. SHAC, LLC d/b/a SAPPHIRE GENTLEMEN'S CLUB; SHAC MT, LLC; EVAN ZAPPOLA d/b/a VEGAS VIP KING, Defendants.
ALVERSON TAYLOR & SANDERS David M. Sexton KURT R. BONDS Attorneys for Plaintiffs BAILEY KENNEDY Rebecca L. Crooker JOSHUA P. GILMORE Attorneys for Defendants, SHAC, LLC d/b/a SAPPHIRE GENTLEMEN'S CLUB; and SHAC MT, LLC
ALVERSON TAYLOR & SANDERS
David M. Sexton
KURT R. BONDS
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
BAILEY KENNEDY
Rebecca L. Crooker
JOSHUA P. GILMORE
Attorneys for Defendants, SHAC, LLC d/b/a SAPPHIRE GENTLEMEN'S CLUB; and SHAC MT, LLC
STIPULATION TO EXTEND DEADLINE FOR REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS
(FIRST REQUEST)
Pursuant to LR IA-6-1, Plaintiffs Cielo Jean “CJ” Gibson, Emma Glover, Julianne Klaren, Lina Posada, Melanie Iglesias, Sandra Valencia, and Vida Guerra (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), by and through their counsel, and Defendants SHAC, LLC d/b/a Sapphire Gentlemen's Club and SHAC MT, LLC (together, the “SHAC Parties”), by and through their counsel, stipulate and agree as follows:
1. On June 17, 2021, Plaintiffs filed their Complaint (ECF No. 1);
2. On July 13, 2021, the SHAC Parties (through their counsel) executed Waivers of Service of Summons forms pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(d) (ECF Nos. 5-6);
3. On November 12, 2021, Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 11), adding Evan Zappola d/b/a Vegas VIP King as an additional Defendant;
4. Plaintiffs are in the process of attempting service of the Summons and First Amended Complaint on Mr. Zappola;
5. On November 29, 2021, Plaintiffs and the SHAC Parties submitted, and this Court approved, a Stipulation to give the SHAC Parties additional time to respond to the First Amended Complaint (ECF Nos. 13-14);
6. On December 13, 2021, the SHAC Parties filed a Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint (the “Motion to Dismiss”) (ECF No. 15);
7. On December 22, 2021, Plaintiffs and the SHAC Parties submitted, and this Court approved, a Stipulation to give Plaintiffs additional time to respond to the Motion to Dismiss (ECF Nos. 17-18);
8. On January 17, 2022, Plaintiffs filed their Response in Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 19);
9. Due to scheduling conflicts for the SHAC Parties' counsel, the time for the SHAC Parties to file their Reply in Support of the Motion to Dismiss shall be extended from January 24, 2022, to February 11, 2022; and
10. This is the first stipulation for an extension of time for the SHAC Parties to file their Reply in Support of the Motion to Dismiss, and is sought in good faith and not for purposes of delay. IT IS SO STIPULATED, THROUGH COUNSEL OF RECORD.
IT IS SO ORDERED.