Opinion
22-cv-00256-JCM-EJY
11-15-2022
THEODURUS STROUS, DERIVATIVELY ON BEHALF OF SCIO DIAMOND TECHNOLOGY CORP., Plaintiff, v. BERNARD MCPHEELY, KARL LEAVERTON, GERALD MCGUIRE, LEWIS SMOAK, ADAMAS ONE CORP. and JOHN G. GRDINA, Defendants, and SCIO DIAMOND TECHLOGY CORP., Nominal Defendant.
Mary E. Bacon, Esq. (NV Bar No. 12686) SPENCER FANE LLP Attorneys for Defendants MUCKLEROY LUNT, LLC Martin A. Muckleroy (NV Bar No. 9634) BEST & FLANAGAN LLP Amy S. Conners John A. Sullivan Brian Linnerooth EVANGELISTA WORLEY, LLC James Evangelista Stuart J. Guber Attorneys for Plaintiff Attorneys for Defendants Bernard McPheely, Karl Leaverton, Gerald McGuire and Lewis Smoak
(Additional Counsel on Signature Page)
Mary E. Bacon, Esq. (NV Bar No. 12686)
SPENCER FANE LLP Attorneys for Defendants
MUCKLEROY LUNT, LLC
Martin A. Muckleroy (NV Bar No. 9634)
BEST & FLANAGAN LLP
Amy S. Conners
John A. Sullivan
Brian Linnerooth
EVANGELISTA WORLEY, LLC
James Evangelista
Stuart J. Guber Attorneys for Plaintiff
Attorneys for Defendants Bernard McPheely, Karl Leaverton, Gerald McGuire and Lewis Smoak
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DEFENDANTS' TIME TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT
HONORABLE ELAYNA J. YOUCHAH U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Defendants Bernard McPheely, Karl Leaverton, Gerald McGuire, and Lewis Smoak, and Plaintiff Theodurus Strous, by and through their respective counsel, hereby request under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(A), that the Court set the time for Defendants to answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint.
On February 10, 2022, Plaintiff Theodurus Strous filed the Complaint against Defendants Bernard McPheely, Karl Leaverton, Gerald McGuire, and Lewis Smoak.
The Parties spent the subsequent months discussing settlement but the parties were unable to reach a resolution.
On September 30, 2022, Plaintiff Theodurus Strous filed the Amended Complaint against Defendants Bernard McPheely, Karl Leaverton, Gerald McGuire, and Lewis Smoak, and added two additional Defendants: Adamas One Corporation and John G. Grdina.
On October 6, 2022, Plaintiff Theodurus Strous served the Summons and Amended Complaint on Adamas One Corporation.
On October 25, 2022, Plaintiff Theodurus Strous served the Amended Complaint on Defendants Bernard McPheely, Karl Leaverton, Gerald McGuire, and Lewis Smoak.
Plaintiff has not yet served John G. Grdina.
No defendant has filed an answer or otherwise responded to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint.
Plaintiff and Defendants Bernard McPheely, Karl Leaverton, Gerald McGuire, and Lewis Smoak have agreed to extend the time for Defendants to answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint as follows:
a. Defendants shall file an answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint by Thursday, January 5, 2023.
b. Plaintiff shall file its opposition to any motion(s) to dismiss filed by Defendants by Thursday, March 2, 2023.
c. Defendants shall file any replies in support of motion(s) to dismiss by Thursday, April 6, 2023.
Good cause exists for the proposed extension, as set forth below:
1. Plaintiff has agreed, as a professional courtesy, to allow Defendants' counsel additional time to review the case with Defendants, investigate the allegations, and prepare a response to the Amended Complaint.
2. Defendants' counsel has limited availability in November and December due to the holidays and parental leave.
3. The claims in the 134-paragraph, 52-page Amended Complaint are complex and require time to conduct a thorough investigation into the facts and the law in order to prepare an initial pleading. And Plaintiff will most likely have to respond to two or three separate motions to dismiss.
4. The Parties do not believe that this extension, if granted, will unreasonably delay this case and that the extension will serve to preserve the court's and the parties' resources and advance judicial economy under the circumstances present in this litigation.
5. Neither Plaintiff nor Defendants will be prejudiced by the stipulation.
Therefore, the Parties jointly request that the Court extend Defendants' period of time to answer or otherwise respond as follows:
1. The time within which Defendants may answer, move, or otherwise respond to the Amended Complaint is hereby extended through and including Thursday, January 5, 2023.
2. Plaintiff shall file its opposition to any motion(s) to dismiss filed by Defendants by Thursday, March 2, 2023.
3. Defendants shall file any replies in support of motion(s) to dismiss by Thursday, April 6, 2023.
4. All rights are reserved with regards to any further requests for extensions of deadlines. This schedule can be modified by further written agreement of the parties or order of the court.
5. This Court shall retain jurisdiction with respect to all matters arising from or related to the implementation of this Order.
Defendants counsel Amy Conners, John Sullivan, and Brian Linnerooth are in the process of seeking pro hac vice admission and will comply with LR IA 11-2 within 14 days.
ORDER
Per the parties' stipulation, IT IS SO ORDERED.
1. The time within which Defendants may answer, move, or otherwise respond to the Amended Complaint is hereby extended through and including Thursday, January 5, 2023.
2. Plaintiff shall file its opposition to any motion(s) to dismiss filed by Defendants by Thursday, March 2, 2023.
3. Defendants shall file any replies in support of motion(s) to dismiss by Thursday, April 6, 2023.
4. All rights are reserved with regards to any further requests for extensions of deadlines. This schedule can be modified by further written agreement of the parties or order of the court.
5. This Court shall retain jurisdiction with respect to all matters arising from or related to the implementation of this Order.