Opinion
2:21-cv-01517-CDS-EJY
07-22-2023
DANIEL E. SIEGGREEN, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. LIVE VENTURES INCORPORATED, JON ISAAC, and VIRLAND A. JOHNSON, Defendants.
Andrew M. Muehlbauer, Esq. MUEHLBAUER LAW OFFICE, LTD. Robert V. Prongay (admitted pro hac vice) Natalie S. Pang (admitted pro hac vice) GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP Attorneys for Lead Plaintiff John A. Hunt, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 1888 Bert Wuester, Jr., Esq. Nevada Bar No. 5556 CLARK HILL, PLLC Attorneys for Defendant JanOne Inc.
Andrew M. Muehlbauer, Esq. MUEHLBAUER LAW OFFICE, LTD.
Robert V. Prongay (admitted pro hac vice)
Natalie S. Pang (admitted pro hac vice)
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
Attorneys for Lead Plaintiff
John A. Hunt, Esq.
Nevada Bar No. 1888
Bert Wuester, Jr., Esq.
Nevada Bar No. 5556
CLARK HILL, PLLC
Attorneys for Defendant JanOne Inc.
STIPULATION TO VACATE DISCOVERY PLAN/SCHEDULING ORDER DEADLINE AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
CRISTINA D. SILVA, JUDGE
Pursuant to LR IA 6-1, LR IA 6-2, and LR 7-1, Lead Plaintiff Daniel E. Sieggreen (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant JanOne Inc. (“Defendant”), by and through their respective counsel, hereby agree and stipulate, subject to this Court's approval, to vacate and reset the deadline for discovery plan/scheduling order, pending the outcome of Defendant's pending motion to dismiss the complaint. This is the parties' first request for the Court to vacate and reset the discovery plan/scheduling order deadline. The parties' request is based on the following:
WHEREAS, on March 6, 2023, Plaintiff filed his Amended Class Action Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws (Dkt. No. 25, the “Complaint”), which alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PSLRA”), 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4, et seq.;
WHEREAS, the PSLRA sets forth specialized procedures for the administration of securities class actions, including that: “[i]n any private action arising under this chapter, all discovery and other proceedings shall be stayed during the pendency of any motion to dismiss, unless the court finds upon the motion of any party that particularized discovery is necessary to preserve evidence or to prevent undue prejudice to that party.” 15 U.S.C. 78u-4(b)(3)(B) (emphasis added) (the “PSLRA Discovery Stay”);
WHEREAS, on June 5, 2023, Defendant filed its motion to dismiss the Complaint and the Court indicated that a discovery plan/scheduling order would be due by July 20, 2023 (Dkt. No. 39);
WHEREAS, Plaintiff filed his opposition to Defendant's motion to dismiss the Complaint on June 20, 2023 (Dkt. No. 48) and Defendant filed its reply on July 20, 2023 (Dkt. Nos. 56-57);
WHEREAS, no party has filed any motion that particularized discovery is necessary to preserve evidence or to prevent undue prejudice to that party, thus the exception to the PSLRA Discovery Stay does not currently apply to this action (see 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4 (b)(3)(B));
WHEREAS, the parties respectfully submit that the statutory PSLRA Discovery Stay applies to this action during the pendency of Defendant's motion to dismiss the Complaint, and in the interests of judicial economy, conservation of time and resources, and orderly management of this action, the parties should not be required to submit a discovery plan and scheduling order until the Court has decided the pending Defendant's motion to dismiss the Complaint, and that discovery should be stayed until the resolution of Defendant's motion to dismiss the Complaint;
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties stipulate and agree, subject to the Court's approval, that:
1. The discovery plan and scheduling order deadline of July 20, 2023, shall be vacated and reset to a date following the Court's decision on Defendant's pending motion to dismiss the Complaint and discovery in this action shall be stayed pending the resolution of Defendant's motion to dismiss the Complaint.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.