Opinion
2:19-cv-02544-JAM-DB
06-22-2021
SOLARMORE MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., a California corporation, Plaintiff, v. JEFF CARPOFF and PAULETTE CARPOFF, husband and wife; LAUREN CARPOFF, an individual; ROBERT V. AMATO, an individual; PRISCILLA AMATO, an individual; ROBERT KARMANN, an individual; RONALD J. ROACH, an individual; JOSEPH BAYLISS, an individual; BAYLISS INNOVATIVE SERVICES, INC., a California corporation; ARI J. LAUER, an individual; LAW OFFICES OF ARI J. LAUER; ALAN HANSEN; an individual; SEBASTIAN JANO, an individual; STEVE WILDE, an individual; RYAN GUIDRY, an individual; CARRIE CARPOFF-BODEN, an individual; PATRICK MOORE, an individual; HALO MANAGEMENT SERVICES LLC, a Nevada limited liability company; ALVAREZ & MARSAL VALUATION SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; BARRY HACKER, an individual; MARSHALL & STEVENS, INC., a Delaware corporation; COHNREZNICK CAPITAL MARKETS SECURITIES, LLC, a Maryland limited liability company; FALLBROOK CAPITAL SECURITIES CORPORATION, a Florida corporation; SCOTT WENTZ, an individual; RAINA YEE, an individual; VISTRA INTERNATIONAL EXPANSION (USA) INC., fka RADIUS GGE (USA), INC., fka HIGH STREET PARTNERS INC., a Maryland corporation; RADIUS GGE (USA), INC., fka HIGH STREET PARTNERS INC., a Maryland corporation; MONTAGE SERVICES, INC., a California corporation; HERITAGE BANK OF COMMERCE, a California corporation; DIANA KERSHAW, an individual; CARSON TRAILER, INC., a California corporation; DAVID ENDRES, an individual; AHERN RENTALS INC., a Nevada corporation, AHERN AD, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company; EVAN AHERN, an individual; THE STRAUSS LAW FIRM, LLC, a South Carolina limited liability company; PETER STRAUSS, an individual; PANDA BEAR INTERNATIONAL, LTD., a Hong Kong corporation; PANDA SOLAR SOLUTIONS LLC, a Nevada limited liability corporation; DC SOLAR INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Nevis corporation; BAYSHORE SELECT INSURANCE, a Bahamian Corporation; CHAMPION SELECT INSURANCE, a Bahamian Corporation; JPLM DYNASTY TRUST, a Cook Island Trust; BILLIE JEAN TRUST, a Cook Island Trust; SOUTHPAC INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Cook Islands Corporation, Defendants.
SNELL & WILMER L.L.P., Nathan G. Kanute, Don Bivens Attorneys for Plaintiff. MINTZ, LEVIN, COHN, FERRIS, GLOVSKY AND POPEO, P.C., Evan S. Nadel Attorneys for Steve Wilde. DILLINGHAM & MURPHY, LLP, Dennis J. Kelly, Esq. Attorneys for Montage Services, Inc., Scott Wentz, and Raina Yee.
Response Deadline: July 12, 2021.
New Response Deadline: August 12, 2021.
SNELL & WILMER L.L.P., Nathan G. Kanute, Don Bivens Attorneys for Plaintiff.
MINTZ, LEVIN, COHN, FERRIS, GLOVSKY AND POPEO, P.C., Evan S. Nadel Attorneys for Steve Wilde.
DILLINGHAM & MURPHY, LLP, Dennis J. Kelly, Esq. Attorneys for Montage Services, Inc., Scott Wentz, and Raina Yee.
STIPULATION FOR EXTENDING TIME FOR DEFENDANTS TO RESPOND TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND ORDER
THE HONORABLE JOHN A. MENDEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE.
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between Plaintiff Solarmore Management Services, Inc. (“Solarmore”) and Defendants Steve Wilde, Montage Services, Inc., Scott Wentz, Raina Yee, and Sebastian Jano (hereafter, the “Defendants”) (collectively, the “Parties”), either for themselves or by and through their respective counsel, that:
Solarmore filed its First Amended Complaint in this Court on December 18, 2020. The Defendants were personally served or waived service on various dates in January 2021;
A number of the Defendants executed waivers of service for the First Amended Complaint, which meant that their responses to Solarmore's First Amended Complaint were not due until March 22, 2021, at the earliest;
Solarmore had previously agreed with various Defendants that had been personally served to extend the deadlines to respond to Solarmore's First Amended Complaint for roughly 28 days until late March 2021;
In the interest of having Defendants' various responsive pleadings or motions to dismiss due on the same date, and thus Solarmore's various oppositions and replies also due on the same date, Solarmore and certain Defendants stipulated to an extension of the deadline for Defendants to respond to the First Amended Complaint until April 22, 2021. See ECF Doc. No. 71;
Solarmore and the Defendants further extended the response deadline for the Defendants to May 12, 2021 (see ECF Nos. 82, 93) and July 12, 2021 (see ECF No. 100);
Following subsequent discussions between Solarmore and the Defendants, the Parties agreed, and hereby request, that the undersigned Defendants' deadline to respond to Solarmore's First Amended Complaint shall be extended further to August 12, 2021 and that Solarmore's deadline to respond to any motion to dismiss be set at 60 days, as it previously was by this Court;
Additionally, given the numerous legal issues and causes of action asserted against Defendants, Solarmore and Defendants have agreed to, and hereby request, a modest modification of the page limits for briefing on Defendants' motions to dismiss as follows: twenty (20) pages for Defendants' initial motions; twenty (20) pages for Solarmore's oppositions, and ten (10) pages for Defendants' replies; and
Finally, the Parties have agreed that it is in the best interests of the Parties and this Court that all discovery and the Rule 26(f) conference be stayed until 30 days after either (a) the hearing on Defendants' motions to dismiss, or (b) the hearing date is taken off the Court's calendar and the motions are deemed submitted on the papers.
This is the fourth request for an extension.
THEREFORE, pursuant to L. R. 143 and 144, the Parties hereby stipulate as follows:
1. The deadline for the Defendants to answer, object, or otherwise respond to Solarmore Management Services, Inc.'s First Amended Complaint shall be August 12, 2021. Defendants' motion briefs shall be limited to twenty (20) pages;
2. The deadline for Solarmore to file its oppositions to Defendants' motions to dismiss shall be October 12, 2021. Solarmore's oppositions shall be limited to twenty (20) pages;
3. The deadline for Defendants to file replies shall be November 2, 2021. Defendants' replies shall be limited to ten (10) pages; and
4. All discovery and the Rule 26(f) conference between the Parties shall be stayed until 30 days after either (a) the hearing on Defendants' motions to dismiss, or (b) the hearing date is taken off the calendar and the motions are deemed submitted on the papers.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.