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.

SIPDA Revocable Trust v. The Parking Reit, Inc.

United States District Court, D. Nevada

April 3, 2019

SIPDA REVOCABLE TRUST, by Trenton J. Warner, Director, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v.
THE PARKING REIT, INC., MICHAEL V. SHUSTEK, ROBERT J. AALBERTS, DAVID CHAVEZ, JOHN E. DAWSON, SHAWN NELSON, NICHOLAS NILSEN and ALLEN WOLFF, Defendants.

          SNELL & WILMER L.L.P., John S. Delikanakis, LATHAM & WATKINS LLP Michele D. Johnson (pro hac vice forthcoming) Kristin N. Murphy (pro hac vice forthcoming) Attorneys for Defendants The Parking Reit, Inc., Michael V. Shustek, Robert J. Aalberts, David Chavez, John E. Dawson, Shawn Nelson, Nicholas Nilsen and Allen Wolff

          LAW OFFICE OF HAYES & WELSH, Martin L. Welsh, LEVI & KORINSKY LLP Donald J. Enright LAW OFFICES OF JOSHUA B. KONS, LLC Joshua B. Kons LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTOPHER J. GRAY P.C. Christopher J. Gray, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiffs Sipda Revocable Trust, by Trenton J. Warner, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated

          STIPULATION EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT (FIRST REQUEST)

         Plaintiff Sipda Revocable Trust (“Plaintiff”) and Defendants the Parking REIT, Inc., Michael V. Shustek, Robert J. Aalberts, David Chavez, John E. Dawson, Shawn Nelson, Nicholas Nilsen and Allen Wolff (“Defendants”) (collectively, the “Parties”), hereby stipulate and agree as follows:

         WHEREAS, on March 12, 2019, Plaintiff filed the complaint (the “Sipda Complaint”) in the above-captioned action (the “Action”), a putative class action arising under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, including the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (the “PSLRA”), 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4, against Defendants;

         WHEREAS, it is possible that additional related actions also arising under the Exchange Act and the PSLRA may be filed in this or other United States District Courts against the same Defendants and asserting substantially similar allegations (the “Potential Related Actions”);

         WHEREAS, there may be a motion or stipulation to consolidate such Potential Related Actions into a single action before this Court;

         WHEREAS, pursuant to the PSLRA, on March 13, 2019, Plaintiff's counsel caused a notice of pendency to be published on Globe Newswire announcing the filing of this Action, and further informing potential class members that motions for appointment as lead plaintiffs are due to be filed in connection with this Action by no later than May 13, 2019;

         WHEREAS, pursuant to the PSLRA, the Court must “[a]s soon as practicable, ” appoint a lead plaintiff who is “most capable of adequately representing the interests of class members, ” 15 U.S.C. § 78u-(a)(3)(B)(i)-(ii);

         WHEREAS, the Court-appointed lead plaintiff will select lead counsel, subject to the Court's approval, 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(v), and identify an operative complaint or file a consolidated complaint that becomes the operative complaint;

         WHEREAS, on March 14, 2019, Defendants waived service of the Sipda Complaint, such that the time to respond to the Sipda Complaint has begun to run; and

         WHEREAS, the parties agree that in the interests of judicial economy, conservation of time and resources, and orderly management of this action, Defendants should not answer or otherwise respond to the Action until after (i) a lead plaintiff and lead counsel are appointed by the Court pursuant to the PSLRA, (ii) such lead plaintiff designates or serves an operative complaint, and (iii) lead plaintiff and Defendants have conferred in good faith concerning a schedule for Defendants to respond to the operative complaint and a scheduling order has been entered by the Court;

         IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED THAT:

1. Defendants shall not be required to answer or otherwise respond to the Action until (1) after a lead plaintiff and lead counsel are appointed by the Court, (2) lead plaintiff serves or designates an operative complaint, and (3) Defendants and lead plaintiff confer regarding a schedule for Defendants to respond to the operative complaint and the Court enters a scheduling order for any anticipated briefing.
2. Nothing herein shall be deemed to constitute a waiver of any rights, defenses, objections, or any other application to any court that any Party may have with respect ...

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.