Opinion
2:22-cv-01226-ART-BNW
11-29-2022
LEX VEST LTD, a Nevada limited liability company; Plaintiff, v. EMANATION COMMUNICATIONS GROUP LC, a Utah limited liability company; DOES 1 through 50; and ROE ENTITIES 51 through 100, inclusive, Defendants. Emanation Communications Group LC, a Utah limited liability, Counterclaim Plaintiff, v. Lex Vest Ltd, a Nevada limited liability company, Counterclaim Defendant Emanation Communications Group LC, a Utah limited liability, Third-Party Plaintiff, v. Lex Tecnica LTD, a Nevada limited liability company, Sam Castor, a manager of Lex Tecnica and Nevada resident, Adam Knecht, a manager of Lex Tecnica and Nevada resident, Nathan Morris, a manager of Lex Tecnica and Utah resident, and Braden John Karony, an individual and resident of Utah, Third-Party Defendants.
DUREN IP, PC LEXTECNICA, Todd E. Zenger (Pro Hac Vice) Utah Bar No. 5238 -and- Jeffrey J. Whitehead, NV Bar No. 3183 Whitehead & Burnett Attorneys for Defendant Emanation Communications Group LC LEXTECNICA Adam Knecht Attorneys for Third-Party Defendant Lex Tecnica Ltd
DUREN IP, PC LEXTECNICA, Todd E. Zenger (Pro Hac Vice) Utah Bar No. 5238 -and- Jeffrey J. Whitehead, NV Bar No. 3183 Whitehead & Burnett Attorneys for Defendant Emanation Communications Group LC
LEXTECNICA Adam Knecht Attorneys for Third-Party Defendant Lex Tecnica Ltd
ORDER APPROVING
STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO MOTION TO DISMISS [ECF NO. 49] OF CASTOR, KNECHT AND MORRIS
(Second Request)
ANNE R. TRAUM, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b) and Local Rule IA 6-1, Sam Castor, Adam Knecht and Nathan Morris (“Third-Party Defendants”), and Third-Party Plaintiff Emanation Communications Group LC (“Third-Party Plaintiff”) hereby stipulate to an extension of time in which Third-Party Plaintiff has until Tuesday, November 29, 2022 to file its response to Third-Party Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Counterclaims [ECF No. 49] filed herein on November 8, 2022. The deadline for Third-Party Defendants to file and serve any reply in support of the motion is seven days after service of the response.
This is the second request to extend this deadline. The extension request is being made to due to family matters out of state and other prior commitments.
IT IS SO ORDERED.