Filed: Nov. 20, 2018
Latest Update: Nov. 20, 2018
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING THE FILING OF AN AMENDED COMPLAINT AND SCHEDULE FOR RESPONSE THERETO (First Request) LARRY R. HICKS , District Judge . STIPULATION REGARDING THE FILING OF AN AMENDED COMPLAINT AND SCHEDULE FOR RESPONSE THERETO Pursuant to LR IA 6-1, LR IA 6-2, LR 7-1, and Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), Plaintiff Hans Menos ("Plaintiff"), by and through his counsel the law firms of Leverty & Associates Law Chtd. Ltd. and The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. and Defendants Jeffery L. Taylor,
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING THE FILING OF AN AMENDED COMPLAINT AND SCHEDULE FOR RESPONSE THERETO (First Request) LARRY R. HICKS , District Judge . STIPULATION REGARDING THE FILING OF AN AMENDED COMPLAINT AND SCHEDULE FOR RESPONSE THERETO Pursuant to LR IA 6-1, LR IA 6-2, LR 7-1, and Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), Plaintiff Hans Menos ("Plaintiff"), by and through his counsel the law firms of Leverty & Associates Law Chtd. Ltd. and The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. and Defendants Jeffery L. Taylor, D..
More
STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING THE FILING OF AN AMENDED COMPLAINT AND SCHEDULE FOR RESPONSE THERETO (First Request)
LARRY R. HICKS, District Judge.
STIPULATION REGARDING THE FILING OF AN AMENDED COMPLAINT AND SCHEDULE FOR RESPONSE THERETO
Pursuant to LR IA 6-1, LR IA 6-2, LR 7-1, and Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), Plaintiff Hans Menos ("Plaintiff"), by and through his counsel the law firms of Leverty & Associates Law Chtd. Ltd. and The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. and Defendants Jeffery L. Taylor, Don L. Taylor, L. John Lewis, S. Randall Oveson and Gannon Giguiere (collectively, "Individual Defendants") and Nominal Defendant Eco Science Solutions, Inc. ("Nominal Defendant" and with Individual Defendants, "Defendants"), by and through their counsel, the law firm of Greenberg Traurig, LLP, hereby stipulate and agree that in lieu of responding to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Verified Stockholder Derivative Complaint ("Motion to Dismiss") (Dkt. No. 42), Plaintiff will file an amended complaint on or before December 21, 2018.
Currently, the deadline for Plaintiff to file an opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is November 26, 2018. While preparing a response to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff has determined it would be productive, as well as conserve party and judicial resources, to file an amended complaint instead of a response as new public information has been made available to Plaintiff since the filing of the initial complaint. Defendants' counsel has agreed to the filing of an amended complaint on or before December 21, 2018.
If the Court permits the filing of the amended complaint on or before December 21, `, the Parties agree that Defendants will have forty-five (45) days to respond to the amended complaint. If a motion to dismiss is filed, Plaintiff shall have forty-five (45) days after the filing of a motion to dismiss to file an opposition and Defendants shall have thirty (30) days after the filing of Plaintiff's opposition to file a reply.
This is the first stipulation for the scheduling of the filing of an amended complaint and response thereto. The Court previously granted Plaintiff's agreed-upon request for an an extension of time to respond to the Motion to Dismiss.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
