Opinion
2:22-cv-00403-CDS-BNW
08-23-2022
MICHAEL ANTHONY MIKSA, an individual, Plaintiff, v. MUSA INDUSTRIES, INC., a California corporation; MAHSAM RAZA, an individual; and DOES 1-20, Defendants. MUSA INDUSTRIES, INC., Counterclaimant, v. MICHAEL ANOTHNY MIKSA, an individual, Counterdefendant.
Ryan J. Works, Esq. (NSBN 9224) Tara U. Teegarden, Esq. (NSBN 15344) McDONALD CARANO LLP Attorneys for Plaintiff WILSON WHITAKER RYNELL John T. Wilson, Esq. Jennifer M. Rynell, Esq. Leigh Caudle Whitaker, Esq. WILEY PETERSEN Jason M. Wiley, Esq. (NSBN 9274) Ryan S. Petersen, Esq. (NSBN 10715) Attorneys for Defendants
Ryan J. Works, Esq. (NSBN 9224) Tara U. Teegarden, Esq. (NSBN 15344) McDONALD CARANO LLP Attorneys for Plaintiff
WILSON WHITAKER RYNELL John T. Wilson, Esq. Jennifer M. Rynell, Esq. Leigh Caudle Whitaker, Esq. WILEY PETERSEN Jason M. Wiley, Esq. (NSBN 9274) Ryan S. Petersen, Esq. (NSBN 10715) Attorneys for Defendants
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO MOTION TO RECONSIDER ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT RAZA'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION [ECF NO. 48]
(FIRST REQUEST)
Plaintiff Michael Anthony Miksa (“Miksa”) and Defendant Musa Industries Inc. (“Musa”) and Mahsam Raza, individually (collectively, “Defendants”), by and through their attorneys, hereby agree, stipulate and respectfully request that the Court extend the deadline to file a response to Musa's Motion to Reconsider Order Denying Defendant Raza's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction [ECF No. 48] (the “Motion”) from August 17, 2022 for a period of 90-days while the parties engage in limited discovery in aid of their good-faith mediation that took place on August 12, 2022, and that the hearing on the Motion shall be set 90-days after. At the conclusion of that mediation, although the parties did not settle, it was agreed that they would engage in limited discovery regarding certain financial information so that Miksa could better evaluate his claims. At the suggestion of the mediator - Hon. David Wall, the parties would return to JAMS after the 90 days has expired to see if they can resolve their differences without resorting to expensive litigation and discovery.
This stipulation is entered into good faith and not for the purposes of delay. There have been no previous requests for extensions of time. This stipulation further extends that time so that the parties can focus on resolution DATED: August 17, 2022 DATED: August 17, 2022
ORDER
Due to the pending mediation, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the [54] stipulation is denied without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the [48] Motion for Reconsideration is denied without prejudice. If this action is not resolved in mediation, Defendants do not have to refile the Motion for Reconsideration. Defendants may file a motion to reinstate the Motion for Reconsideration. If the motion to reinstate is filed, the Court will set a briefing schedule, or, in the alternative, the parties may stipulate to a briefing schedule.
IT IS SO ORDERED.