Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Russell Road Food and Beverage, LLC v. Galam, 2:13-cv-00776-RFB-NJK. (2018)

Court: District Court, D. Nevada Number: infdco20180330e39 Visitors: 3
Filed: Mar. 28, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2018
Summary: STIPULATED REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL TIME TO SUBMIT PROPOSED JOINT DISCOVERY AND SCHEDULING ORDER RICHARD F. BOULWARE , District Judge . On February 28, 2018, this Court held a hearing on the following motions: • Defendants Mike Galam, Victor Galam, Jacqueline Galam Barnes, Crazy Horse Too Gentlemen's Club LLC, Rhino Bare Projects LLC, and Rhino Bare Projects 4824 LLC's (the "Galam Defendants") Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 336); • Defendants Canico Capital Group, LLC and Industrial Ro
More

STIPULATED REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL TIME TO SUBMIT PROPOSED JOINT DISCOVERY AND SCHEDULING ORDER

On February 28, 2018, this Court held a hearing on the following motions:

• Defendants Mike Galam, Victor Galam, Jacqueline Galam Barnes, Crazy Horse Too Gentlemen's Club LLC, Rhino Bare Projects LLC, and Rhino Bare Projects 4824 LLC's (the "Galam Defendants") Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 336); • Defendants Canico Capital Group, LLC and Industrial Road 2440-2497, LLC's (the "Canico Defendants") and Defendants Abraham Assil, George Eshaghian, West Best Capital Group, LLC, SN & GE, LLC, and Soleiman Nazarian's (the "Assil Defendants") Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 337); • Defendants Djavid Hakakian, Morris Nejathaim, Hamed Yazdanpanah, Isaac Javdanfar, Kamran Samooha, Mehran Sadighpour, Sefox Investment, LLC, El Marino, LLC, Knotting Hill, LLC, IJ Properties, LLC, and S Double, LLC's (the "Hakakian Defendants") Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 339); • Plaintiff Russell Road Food and Beverage, LLC's ("Russell Road") Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment against the Galam Defendants, Canico Defendants, Assil Defendants, and Hakakian Defendants (ECF Nos. 346, 348, and 351); and • Plaintiff Russell Road's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 361).

At the hearing, the Court took the motions under submission and ordered the parties to submit a proposed joint discovery and scheduling order.

On March 12, 2018, the Court issued a Minute Order providing as follows:

IT IS ORDERED that the parties shall submit a Joint Proposed Discovery/Scheduling Order for this Court's consideration due by two weeks. The Scheduling Order should include six to nine months of discovery with a motion calendar as it relates to dispositive motions regarding the issue of personal liability which can address the period of infringement and damages. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties are directed to electronically file in CM/ECF, a joint letter for this Court's consideration regarding any disputed discovery issues. The parties are then directed to notify the courtroom deputy as to scheduling a status conference hearing.

ECF No. 373. Pursuant to the Court's Minute Order, the Joint Proposed Discovery and Scheduling Order was due on March 14, 2018.

At present, the parties are unable to agree on the language of a Joint Proposed Discovery and Scheduling Order and are in the process of attempting to negotiate mutually acceptable language. The parties respectfully request additional time to submit the Joint Proposed Discovery and Scheduling Order.

The parties propose that they be given until April 3, 2018 to submit a Joint Proposed Discovery and Scheduling Order and that, if the parties are unable to reach agreement on a Joint Proposed Discovery and Scheduling Order by April 3, 2018, the parties shall each submit their own proposed Discovery and Scheduling Order by April 6, 2018 for the Court's consideration.

IT IS SO STIPULATED

IT IS SO ORDERED:

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