United States District Court, D. Nevada
MCDONALD CARANO, LLP Pat Lundvall (NVSBN 3761) James V.
Masella, III (pending admission pro hac vice) Jesse A.
Townsend (pending admission pro hac vice) PATTERSON BELENAP
WEBB & TYLER LLP Attorneys for Defendants Robert Lee,
Steve Roberts, Edward Yew, Brian Morales, and Jon Tondeur and
for Nominal Defendant Zoompass Holdings, Inc.
LEVERTY & ASSOCATION LAW CHTD PATRICK R. LEVERTY, Esq.
Reno Gould House Liaison Counsel for Plaintiff
BROWN LAW FIRM, P.C. Timothy W. Brown, Esq. Attorneys for
STIPULATION AND ORDER STAYING PROCEEDINGS ECF NO.
Jennifer Dorsey, U.S. District Judge.
Plaintiff Airick Johnson filed his Complaint on July 26, 2017
in which he alleged, among other things, breaches of
fiduciary duty, corporate waste, gross mismanagement, unjust
enrichment, and waste of corporate assets derivatively on
behalf of Nominal Defendant Zoompass Holdings, Inc. (the
"Nominal Defendant") against Defendants Robert Lee,
Steve Roberts, Edward Yew, Brian Morales, and Jon Tondeur
(collectively, the "Individual Defendants, " and
together with the Nominal Defendant, the
pending before the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey is Patel v. Zoompass Holdings,
Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-03831-JLL-JAD (D. NJMay 30, 2017)
(the "Securities Class Action"), a putative class
action alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and regulations promulgated thereunder;
the parties to the Securities Class Action have stipulated
that Defendants shall answer, move, or otherwise respond to
Plaintiffs Amended Complaint on or before 60 days from
November 20, 2017, the filing date of the Amended Complaint;
Plaintiffs Complaint in the above-captioned matter alleges
certain misconduct that is similar to the misconduct alleged
in the Securities Class Action;
Plaintiff, the Individual Defendants, and the Nominal
Defendant wish to promote the efficient and orderly
administration of justice by coordinating this derivative
action with the Securities Class Action;
when this matter was pending in the District Court for Clark
County, Nevada, Plaintiff, the Individual Defendants, and the
Nominal Defendant had entered into a stipulation that
included Paragraphs 1-11, infra, and counsel for the
Individual Defendants and the Nominal Defendant accepted
service of the Complaint on behalf of all Defendants,
including the Individual Defendants who had not previously
been served; and
the Individual Defendants have removed this action to the
United States District Court for the District of Nevada, and
in consideration for Plaintiff s consent to the same, have
agreed to stipulate to Paragraphs 1-11, infra.
THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between
the undersigned counsel for the Plaintiff, the Individual
Defendants, and the Nominal Defendant that:
authorizing their counsel to accept service on their behalf,
the Individual Defendants waive any and all objections to the
absence of summons or of service, but do not waive any other
defense, objection, or ground for dismissal that they may
have otherwise raised in response to this action, including
but not limited to any objection to the Court's
jurisdiction orvenue of the action.
activity in the above-captioned matter shall be stayed, and
the Defendants shall need not answer, move, or otherwise
respond to Plaintiff s Complaint, or any ...