Filed: May 31, 2019
Latest Update: May 31, 2019
Summary: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND MOTION TO STAY FIRST REQUEST MIRANDA M. DU , District Judge . Plaintiff RB Products, Inc. ("RB Products") files this Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Defendants' various motions identified below, and requests that it be permitted until June 30, 2019 to file responses. As discussed further below, good cause exists for this extension. Plaintiff respectfully requests an extension through the
Summary: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND MOTION TO STAY FIRST REQUEST MIRANDA M. DU , District Judge . Plaintiff RB Products, Inc. ("RB Products") files this Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Defendants' various motions identified below, and requests that it be permitted until June 30, 2019 to file responses. As discussed further below, good cause exists for this extension. Plaintiff respectfully requests an extension through the ..
More
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND MOTION TO STAY
FIRST REQUEST
MIRANDA M. DU, District Judge.
Plaintiff RB Products, Inc. ("RB Products") files this Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Defendants' various motions identified below, and requests that it be permitted until June 30, 2019 to file responses. As discussed further below, good cause exists for this extension.
Plaintiff respectfully requests an extension through the end of June 30, 2019 to respond to Defendants' following motions:
Party Pleading Document
Encore, RESC, Soule Soule Defendants' Motion to 47
Dismiss Amended Complaint
Encore, RESC, Soule Soule Defendants' Answer to
Amended Complaint 48
Ryze Capital, Ryze Las Vegas, Motion to Stay Plaintiff's Claims 51
Dancy, Pearson Pending Arbitration
Ryze Capital, Ryze Las Vegas, Ryze Capital Defendants' Motion
Dancy, Pearson to Dismiss and Memorandum of 52
Points and Authorities In Support
Thereof
Ryze Reno, Ryze Renewables Joinder to Motion to Stay
Plaintiff's Claims Pending 53
Arbitration
Ryze Reno, Ryze Renewables Joinder to Motion to Dismiss 54
Amended Complaint
Ryze Capital, Ryze Las Vegas, Ryze Capital Defendants' Motion 55
Dancy, Pearson to Dismiss and Memorandum of
Points and Authorities In Support
Thereof (Corrected Image re Dkt
52)
Michael Brown Brown's Joinder to Motion to 56
Dismiss [52]
Michael Brown Brown's Joinder to Motion to 57
Dismiss [47]
Michael Brown Brown's Joinder to Motion to Stay 58
[51]
Michael Brown Brown's Motion to Dismiss 59
Plaintiff's Amended Complaint
Good cause exists for this extension because Plaintiff's lead counsel's firm, which consists of two lawyers, is scheduled to begin a jury trial on June 10, 2019 in the 284th District Court of Montgomery County, Texas. That trial is expected to last approximately one week, and will necessarily require trial preparation beforehand. Plaintiff's request for a 19-day extension for its responses is reasonable, as it would allow counsel to conclude that trial on or about June 17, 2019 and then start preparing Plaintiff's responses to the many pending motions.
Plaintiff has conferred with the Defendants regarding this extension and a possible agreed briefing schedule but has been unable to reach a complete consensus.
Defendants Ryze Capital Partners, Chris Dancy, Matt Pearson, Ryze Renewables Las Vegas, Ryze Renewables Reno, and Ryze Renewables are agreeable to Plaintiff's requested extension, with the proviso that their respective replies be due on July 26, 2019. Plaintiff is in agreement with this proviso.
Conversely, Defendants Encore, Randy Soule, RESC, and Michael Brown stated that they are opposed to Plaintiff's request for an extension.1
Due to the number of the pending motions—some of which will involve complicated issues of non-signatory arbitration law—and due to the fact that Plaintiff's lead counsel's firm will be in trial starting June 10th, Plaintiff contends that good cause exists to extend the time for Plaintiff to file its responses to the above-identified motions. Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court to grant Plaintiff's first request for extension, and Order that Plaintiff's responses are due on June 30, 2019.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND MOTION TO STAY
Before the Court is Plaintiff RB Products' Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Defendants' motions. This Court has reviewed the motion and finds that the requested relief be granted.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to the pending motions (Dkt. Nos. 47, 48, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, and 59) is hereby GRANTED.
Plaintiff's responses these motions are due on or before June 30, 2019.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
