Opinion
3:19-cv-00125-CLB
02-17-2023
DAVID M. SEMAS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CHEMETALL US, INC., et al., Defendants.
HOLLAND & HART LLP Robert C. Ryan (NSBN 7164) Timothy A. Lukas (NSBN 4678) Joshua M. Halen (NSBN 13885) Teague I. Donahey (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) Attorneys for Defendants Chemetall US, Inc., BASF Corporation, QualiChem, Inc., John Schneider & Associates, Inc., Ronatec C2C, Inc., Southern Industrial Chemicals, Inc., and Miles Chemical Company HOY CHRISSINGER KIMMEL VALLAS PC Michael D. Hoy (NSBN 2723) Attorneys for Plaintiffs
HOLLAND & HART LLP
Robert C. Ryan (NSBN 7164)
Timothy A. Lukas (NSBN 4678)
Joshua M. Halen (NSBN 13885)
Teague I. Donahey (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
Attorneys for Defendants Chemetall US, Inc., BASF Corporation, QualiChem, Inc., John Schneider & Associates, Inc., Ronatec C2C, Inc., Southern Industrial Chemicals, Inc., and Miles Chemical Company
HOY CHRISSINGER KIMMEL VALLAS PC
Michael D. Hoy (NSBN 2723)
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO LIFT STAY
FIRST REQUEST
Plaintiffs David Semas and Metalast, Inc., by and through counsel, and Defendants Chemetall US, Inc.; BASF Corporation; QualiChem, Inc.; John Schneider & Associates, Inc.; Ronatec C2C, Inc.; Southern Industrial Chemicals, Inc.; and Miles Chemical Company, by and through counsel, stipulate as follows:
1. On February 6, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Lift Stay based on an order and judgment entered in Chemeon Surface Technology, LLC v. Metalast International, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00294 (ECF No. 200).
2. Defendants' Response to the Motion to Stay is due on February 21, 2023. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a); Local Rule LR 7-2(b).
3. The parties stipulate and agree that Defendants' Response to the Motion to Stay shall be extended and that the Response shall be filed on or before February 28, 2023.
4. This is the first request to extend to the time to file a Response to the Motion to Lift Stay. 1
5. Pursuant to LR IA 6-1, this first request for an extension is made with good cause and in good faith and not for purposes of delay. Because of the unavailability of Defendants' counsel during periods of February, it be would very difficult and impose an undue burden on their clients and counsel to meet the current filing deadline for filing an opposition to Semas' motion to lift stay in this case. Counsel do not believe that the short extension requested would cause any undue delay in this case. Defendants' counsel believes the extension allows for a better and more complete resolution of the pending motion.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
ORDER
Accordingly, Defendants' response to the motion to stay shall be filed on or before
IT IS SO ORDERED. 2