Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

McNamara v. Selling Source, LLC, 2:17-cv-02969-JAD-CWH. (2018)

Court: District Court, D. Nevada Number: infdco20180611876 Visitors: 14
Filed: Jun. 08, 2018
Latest Update: Jun. 08, 2018
Summary: STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANTS SELLING SOURCE, LLC, PARTNERWEEKLY L.L.C., MONEYMUTUAL, LLC, DATAX, LTD., AND DEREK LAFAVOR'S MOTIONS TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (FIRST REQUEST) ECF Nos. 52, 54 JENNIFER A. DORSEY , District Judge . Plaintiff, Thomas W. McNamara ("Plaintiff") in his capacity as court-appointed Monitor, Defendants Selling Source, LLC; PartnerWeekly L.L.C.; MoneyMutual, LLC; and DataX, Ltd. ("Corporate Defendants") represented by Jeff Silvestri of
More

STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANTS SELLING SOURCE, LLC, PARTNERWEEKLY L.L.C., MONEYMUTUAL, LLC, DATAX, LTD., AND DEREK LAFAVOR'S MOTIONS TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

(FIRST REQUEST)

ECF Nos. 52, 54

Plaintiff, Thomas W. McNamara ("Plaintiff") in his capacity as court-appointed Monitor, Defendants Selling Source, LLC; PartnerWeekly L.L.C.; MoneyMutual, LLC; and DataX, Ltd. ("Corporate Defendants") represented by Jeff Silvestri of McDonald Carano, LLP and Benjamin J. Razi and Dennis B. Auerbach of Covington & Burling LLP, and Defendant Derek LaFavor ("LaFavor") represented by Marc P. Cook of Cook & Kelesis, Ltd. (collectively, "Defendants") stipulate and agree as follows:

WHEREAS, Plaintiff filed a First Amended against Defendants on April 30, 2018 (ECF No. 49);

WHEREAS, LaFavor filed his Motion to Exceed 24 Page Limit Pursuant to Local Rule 7-3(c) on May 30, 2018 (ECF No. 52), wherein he attached his Omnibus Motion to Dismiss Monitor's First Amended Complaint for Failure to State a Claim Pursuant to Rule 12; for Lack of Jurisdiction Pursuant to NRS 12.230 and NRS 11.190(3)(d); or in the Alternative for More Definite Statement (ECF No. 52-1).

WHEREAS, Corporate Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint on May 30, 2018 (ECF No. 53) (collectively, the "Motions to Dismiss").

WHEREAS, Plaintiff's deadline to file his responses to the Motions to Dismiss is currently June 13, 2018.

WHEREAS, Plaintiff is currently on a family vacation out of the country from June 3, 2018 to June 17, 2018.

WHEREAS, LaFavor's counsel will be on a family vacation from June 13, 2018 to June 26, 2018.

NOW, THEREFORE, the parties stipulate, subject to Court approval, that Plaintiff's deadline to file his responses to the Motions to Dismiss shall be extended to June 29, 2018 and Defendants' deadline to file their replies in support of the Motions to Dismiss shall be extended to July 23, 2018.

ORDER

Based upon the parties' stipulation [54] and good cause appearing, IT IS ORDERED that the deadline to respond to the motion to dismiss is extended to June 29, 2018. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGEIT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to enlarge page limits [52] is GRANTED. However, the format of the oversized motion [53] does not comply with LR 7-3(c) because it does not include a table of contents and a table of authorities. The manner in which it was filed does not comply with LR IA 10-3 and IC 2-2(a)(3) because the exhibits are filed as part of the base document, not attached as separate files with an index. Defendants have 3 days to submit a corrected image of the motion [54] that complies with the rules of this court.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer