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.

Klahn v. Kostopoulos

United States District Court, D. Nevada

March 22, 2018

DANIEL P. KLAHN SR., Plaintiff,
v.
ARETE RITA KOSTOPOULOS and ROBERT CHANG, Defendants.

          PLAINTIFF, DANIEL P. KLAHN, SR., PRO SE Daniel P. Klahn, Sr., Pro Se

          DEFENDANTS, ARETE RITA KOSTOPOULOS and ROBERT CHANG, By their attorneys Renee E. Jensen Renee E. Jensen, Esq., Bar No. 6001 FORD, WALKER, HAGGERTY & BEHAR

          AMENDED STIPULATED DISCOVERY PLAN AND [PROPOSED] SCHEDULING ORDER SPECIAL SCHEDULING REVIEW REQUESTED

         STIPULATED AMENDED DISCOVERY PLAN AND SCHEDULING ORDER PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 26(f) AND LOCAL RULE 26-4

         Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(f) and United States District Court, District of Nevada Local Rules IA 6-1 and 26-4, the respective parties hereby submit this Amended Discovery Plan and Proposed Scheduling Order.

         Pursuant to United States District Court, District of Nevada Local Rule 26-4, the respective parties provide the following:

         A. STATEMENT SPECIFYING THE DISCOVERY COMPLETED.

         To date, the parties have provided initial disclosures within 14 days of the Rule 26(f) Conference. No other discovery has been conducted.

         B. SPECIFIC DESCRIPTION OF THE DISCOVERY THAT REMAINS TO BE COMPLETED

         The discovery that remains to be completed by Defendants Robert Chang and Arete Rita Kostopoulos (“Defendants”) includes written discovery, depositions of percipient witnesses, and expert depositions. Defendants anticipate filing discovery-related motions as necessary.

         C. REASONS WHY THE DEADLINE WAS NOT SATISIFED OR REMIAINING DISCOVERY WAS NOT COMPLETED WITHIN TIME LIMITS SET BY DISCOVERY PLAN

         On December 01, 2017, defendant Arete Rita Kostopoulos filed a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Serve Process; For Insufficient Service of Process; For Failure to State a Claim; for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction; In the alternative to Dismiss or Transfer for Improper Venue or in the Alternative to Transfer for Convenience (28 USC §1404(a)). (ECF No. 14.)

         On December 22, 2017, defendant Robert Chang also filed a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Serve Process; For Insufficient Service of Process; For Failure to State a Claim; for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction; In the alternative to Dismiss or Transfer for Improper Venue or in the Alternative to Transfer for Convenience (28 USC §1404(a)). (ECF No. 22.)

         On January 12, 2018, the respective parties submitted a Stipulated Discovery Plan and Proposed Scheduling Order at this court's request. (ECF No. 29.) The proposed dates were stipulated to with the belief that the court would hear and provide rulings on Defendants' Motions to Dismiss prior to the deadlines set forth in the proposed scheduling order.

         However, to date, the court has not ruled on the pending Motions to Dismiss filed by Defendant Arete Rita Kostopoulos' or Defendant Robert Chang. As such, the respective parties respectfully request that the scheduling order be amended, as set forth below, to dates that would coincide with the yet to be determined hearing date of Defendants' Motions to Dismiss and would provide adequate time for discovery to be conducted by the respective parties in the event the motions are not granted.

         D. AMENDED PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR COMPLETING ALL REMAINING DISCOVERY

         1. Discovery Limitations

         The scope of discovery shall conform to the limitations provided under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 26-1.

          2. Identification of Issues for Possible Early Resolution

          Defendants Arete Rita Kostopoulos and Robert Chang identify their pending motions to dismiss or transfer, which would allow for early resolution of the entire action or particular causes of action, or transfer this matter to another district. Further, the resolution of these motions through transfer would require the parties to file a Discovery Plan compliant with different local rules.

         In the event this Court dismisses all of Plaintiff's causes of action, this scheduling order shall not apply. In the event this Court dismiss some, but not all, of Plaintiff's causes of action, this scheduling order shall apply to those remaining causes of action. In the event this Court grants a venue transfer, this scheduling order shall not apply. In the event this Court denies Defendants' Motions to Dismiss or Transfer, the following dates shall apply (If any of the following deadlines fall on a weekend or court holiday, then the deadline is extended to the first court day after the deadline):

         3.Discovery ...


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.