Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Morse v. Ten X Holdings LLC

United States District Court, D. Nevada

March 30, 2017

JEFFREY MORSE, as executor of the Estate of Donald L. Pratt - FB Estate of Donald L. Pratt, Plaintiff,
v.
TEN X HOLDINGS, LLC, an Illinois limited liability company; RICHARD F. BESTON, an individual; BRIAN PEBLEY, an individual; JOHN BRANCH, an individual; DOES I through X; and ROE CORPORATIONS I through X, Defendants.

          MARQUIS AURBACH COFFING Terry Coffing, Jonathan Lee, Attorneys for Plaintiff Jeffrey Morse, as executor of the Esatet of Donald L. Pratt - FB Estate of Donald L. Pratt.

          HOWARD & HOWARD ATTORNEYS PLLC Robert Hernquist, Jay Young, Attorneys for Defendant Richard Beston.

          MULLINER LAW GROUP CHTD Timothy Mulliner, Attorneys for Defendant Ten X Holdings, LLC.

          John Branch Defendant In Properia Persona.

          STIPULATION AND ORDER TO STAY DISCOVERY PENDING A DETERMINATION ON DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS OR TRANSFER

         Pursuant to Local Rules LR II 26-1 and LR II 26-4, Plaintiff Jeffrey Morse (“Plaintiff), Defendant Ten X Holdings, LLC (“TXH”), Defendant Richard Beston (“Beston”) and Defendant John Branch (“Branch” and together with TXH and Beston, “Defendants”) submit this stipulation to stay discovery pending decisions on the Defendants' pending motions to transfer or dismiss:

         The Pending Motions to Dismiss or, In the Alternative, To Transfer to Illinois

         1. Plaintiff filed the Complaint on November 28, 2016 in the Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County, Nevada, Case No. A-16-747268-C. (ECF 1-1).

         2. Beston was the first-appearing defendant, and removed this case on January 8, 2017. (ECF 1).

         3. On February 1, 2017, Beston filed a Motion to Dismiss or Alternatively Transfer Venue (“Beston's Motion to Dismiss”). (ECF 6 & 7). In Beston's Motion to Dismiss he argues, inter alia, that this case should be transferred to Illinois pursuant to forum selection clauses that are contained in the underlying documents between the parties. (Id.). Plaintiff filed an Opposition to Beston's Motion to Dismiss on February 15, 2017 (ECF 10) and Beston filed his Reply on February 23, 2017 (ECF 13).

         4. On February 27, 2017, Branch filed a Motion to Dismiss or Alternatively Transfer Venue (“Branch's Motion to Dismiss”) which also argues, inter alia, that this case should be transferred to Illinois pursuant to forum selection clauses that are contained in the underlying documents between the parties. (ECF 19). Plaintiff filed an Opposition to Branch's Motion to Dismiss on March 13, 2017 (ECF 24).

         5. On March 1, 2017, TXH filed a Motion to Transfer Venue or, Alternatively, to Dismiss (“Ten X's Motion to Dismiss”) which also argues, inter alia, that this case should be transferred to Illinois pursuant to forum selection clauses that are contained in the underlying documents between the parties. (ECF 17 & 18). Plaintiff filed an Opposition to TXH's Motion to Dismiss on March 15, 2017 (ECF 25).

         The Pending Motion to Stay Discovery

         6. On February 16, 2017, Beston filed a Motion to Stay Discovery Pending Resolution of Beston's Motion to Dismiss (“Beston's Motion to Stay Discovery”). (ECF 11). Plaintiff has not opposed Beston's Motion to Stay Discovery.

         7. Absent this Stipulation, TXH and Branch would have filed joinders to Beston's Motion to Stay Discovery and/or filed their own separate motions to stay discovery pending a decision on ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.