Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Minnie Moore Resources, Inc. v. Interval Equipment Solutions, Inc., 2:18-cv-00086-APG-VCF. (2018)

Court: District Court, D. Nevada Number: infdco20180720b81 Visitors: 4
Filed: Jul. 19, 2018
Latest Update: Jul. 19, 2018
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND TIME FOR FILING DISCOVERY PLAN/SCHEDULING ORDER First Request CAM FERENBACH , Magistrate Judge . The parties respectfully submit the following Stipulation to requesting that the Court, pursuant to FRCP Rule 16 (b)(2) and based upon good cause, grant the parties extra time to file a Discovery Plan/Scheduling Order. Procedural History Plaintiff filed its Complaint on January 16, 2018 and served it upon Defendant on January 22, 2018. Thereafter, the parties
More

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND TIME FOR FILING DISCOVERY PLAN/SCHEDULING ORDER

First Request

The parties respectfully submit the following Stipulation to requesting that the Court, pursuant to FRCP Rule 16 (b)(2) and based upon good cause, grant the parties extra time to file a Discovery Plan/Scheduling Order.

Procedural History

Plaintiff filed its Complaint on January 16, 2018 and served it upon Defendant on January 22, 2018. Thereafter, the parties participated in an out-of-state inspection of the mining equipment that is central to this dispute. This Court granted three extensions of time for Defendant to respond to the Complaint to accommodate that inspection and the preparation of reports arising therefrom.

On May 7, 2017, the parties appeared before this Court. The Court directed that Defendant Plaintiff file its Amended Complaint by 5/21/2018, and that Defendant file its response within 14 days of the filing of the Amended Complaint.

After Plaintiff filed its Amended Complaint, Defendant on 06/04/2018 filed a Motion to Dismiss based on lack of jurisdiction. That Motion has been fully briefed and is now before the Court for decision. On that same day, the Court directed that the Discovery Plan/Scheduling Order was due on 07/19/2018.

Reason for the Request

LR-26-1(a) states that the "conference required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) [shall] be held within 30 days after the first defendant answers or otherwise appears." So far, Defendant has not appeared. It has only filed its Motion to Dismiss, which is still pending before the Court. Should the Court grant that Motion, the case will necessarily be dismissed, obviating the need for discovery.

Should the Court deny the Motion, there is a substantial likelihood that the matter will then forthwith be submitted to binding arbitration, which the parties have been discussing for months. That too will obviate the need for a detailed Discovery Plan/Scheduling Order with this Court.

The parties thus respectfully request that the due date of July 19, 2018 for the Discovery Plan/Scheduling Order be vacated and extended for a time period sufficient for this Court to render a decision on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties, through their respective counsel, that the parties shall submit their Discovery Plan/ Scheduling Order by a date acceptable to the Court, which date shall be November 19, 2018.

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