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.

Hackett Miller Company, Inc. v. Gfour Productions, LLC

United States District Court, D. Nevada

May 8, 2017

THE HACKETT MILLER COMPANY, INC., a Nevada corporation, Plaintiff,
v.
GFOUR PRODUCTIONS, LLC, a Florida limited liability company; and SPOTLIGHT RIGHTS, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, Defendants.

          Ryan Gile (NV Bar No. 8807) rgile@weidemiller.com F. Christopher Austin (NV Bar No. 6559) caustin@weidemiller.com WEIDE & MILLER. LTD. 7251 W. Lake Mead Blvd., Attorneys for Plaintiff, The Hackett Miller Company, Inc.

          Gene S. Winter (pro hac vice) gwinter @ssjr.com Jonathan A. Winter (pro hac vice) ST. ONGE STEWARD JOHNSTON AND REENS LLC, Ronald D. Green (NV Bar No. 7360) Alex J. Shepard (NV Bar No. 13582) RANDAZZA LEGAL GROUP, PLLC, ecf@randazza.com Attorneys for Defendants, GFour Productions, LLC and Spotlight Rights, LLC

         STIPULATION AND (PROPOSED) ORDER FOR (1) EXTENSION OF TIME FOR PARTIES TO FILE A DISCOVERY PLAN AND SCHEDULING ORDER PURSUANT TO THE COURT'S ORDER DATED MARCH 31, 2017 (Third Request) AND (2) EXTENSION OF TIME FOR THE PARTIES TO CONDUCT JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY (First Request)

          RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II United States District Judge

         Plaintiff THE HACKETT MILLER COMPANY, INC. (“Plaintiff”), and Defendants GFOUR PRODUCTIONS, LLC and SPOTLIGHT RIGHTS LLC (“Defendants”), by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate and agree to a third 21-day extension of time up to and including May 26, 2017, for the parties to file a Joint Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order with the Court pursuant to the Court's Minute Order dated March 31, 2017 (ECF No. 29) as well as a 30-day extension of time for the parties to conduct the jurisdictional discovery ordered by the Court in the same Minute Order.

         On March 30, 2017, the Court denied without prejudice Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for (1) Lack of Personal Jurisdiction, (2) Failure to Join a Necessary Party, and (3) Improper Venue, and (4) Request to Transfer Venue (ECF No. 22) and ordered the parties to engage in jurisdictional discovery for a period of 60 days commencing March 31, 2017, and to submit a joint proposed discovery/scheduling order within one week from March 31, 2017.

         On April 7, 2017, the parties filed a stipulation to extend the time to file a discovery plan for 14 days (ECF No. 30) because the parties had reached a settlement framework which would dismiss the action entirely and wanted additional time to allow the parties to finalize settlement in the form of a formal written settlement agreement. On April 10, 2017, the Court granted the stipulation of the parties (ECF No. 31).

         While Plaintiff's counsel diligently prepared a draft written settlement agreement for Defendants' review, Plaintiff's counsel was unable to obtain client approval on the draft due to vacation travel plans by Plaintiff's principals until April 17, 2017. Defendants' counsel provided proposed revisions to the settlement agreement on April 20, 2017.

         Because Plaintiff's counsel required additional time to review and discuss Defendants' proposed changes prior to the revised deadline to submit a discovery plan, the parties, on April 21, 2017, filed a second stipulation to extend the time to file a discovery plan for another 14 days (ECF No. 32) to May 5, 2017, which the Court granted on May 2, 2017 (ECF No. 33).

         On April 24, 2017, the parties' counsel discussed Defendants' latest revisions to the draft settlement agreement. While Defendants' revisions raised some additional issues from Plaintiff's side, counsel for both parties believed that such issues could be worked out among the parties and agreed to continue trying to work towards a mutually acceptable settlement agreement. While Plaintiff's counsel worked diligently on further revisions to the settlement agreement that would address Plaintiff's concerns, Plaintiff's counsel was again not able to get client approval on the revised draft prior to sending it back to Defendants' counsel. This time, however, it was due to Plaintiff's primary principal, whom Plaintiff's counsel has been working with in connection with these settlement negotiations, falling severely ill and not being in a condition to review carefully an important legal agreement such as the proposed settlement agreement. In addition, Plaintiff's counsel is currently scheduled to be outside the country from May 5th through May 18th on a two-week vacation that was scheduled back in February (and about which Defendants' counsel was informed by Plaintiff's counsel on March 30, 2017).

         By this Stipulation, the parties request that the deadline to file a joint proposed discovery plan/scheduling order be extended by another 21 days to May 26, 2017. Moreover, while the parties remain optimistic that jurisdictional discovery will be unnecessary in light of the ongoing settlement discussion between the parties, the parties nonetheless respectfully request a 30-day extension of the current jurisdictional discovery period to June 30, 2017, in the event that the parties are unable to reach a complete settlement and must proceed with jurisdictional discovery.

         This is the third request for an extension of time by both parties to file the joint proposed discovery/scheduling order and the first request for an extension of time to the jurisdictional discovery period. Good cause exists for these requests because while the parties remain optimistic about the prospects of consummating a settlement, they require additional time due to the reasons described above in order to address the remaining issues that exist between the parties, approve revisions to the settlement agreement with their respective clients, and finalize such settlement. For these reasons, this stipulated request is made for good cause and not for purposes of delay.

         IT ...


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.