United States District Court, D. Nevada
TISSUE REGENERATION TECHNOLOGIES, LLC and GENERAL PATENT, LLC Plaintiffs,
MALE PERFORMANCE MEDICAL PARTNERSHIP, LLC; MEDICAL PARTNERSHIP, LLC; R. BAXTER TEEGARDEN; LEONARD MESSLNA; RICHARD NEISWONGER a/k/a RICK CHARLES; LAS VEGAS MALE PERFORMANCE CLLNIC; and PEAK HEALTH GROUP LV LLC, Defendants.
A. Kantor, Philip A. Kantor, Esq., Law Offices of Philip A.
Kantor, P.C. Attorneys for Defendants.
Christopher Austin. F. Christopher Austin, Esq. Attorneys for
STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO ANSWER
OR OTHERWISE RESPOND TO AMENDED COMPLAINT
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1) and Local Rule IA
6-1, Plaintiffs Tissue Regeneration Technologies, LLC and
General Patent, LLC, (collectively, "Plaintiffs")
and Defendants Male Performance Medical Partnership, LLC,
Medical Partnership, LLC, Leonard Messina, and Las Vegas Male
Performance Clinic (collectively, the "Messina
Defendants" or "Defendants"), by and through
their respective counsel of record, Weide & Miller, Ltd.,
on behalf of Plaintiffs, and the Law Offices of Philip A.
Kantor, P.C, appearing on behalf of the Messina Defendants,
hereby agree and stipulate for an extension of time for the
Messina Defendants to file and serve their answer or other
responses to the Amended Complaint from the current deadline
of June 28, 2019, up to and including September 3, 2019.
cause for this request exists to provide the parties with
time to continue in good faith settlement discussions,
particularly regarding issues of non-infringement, patent
validity, and alleged false advertising.
December 19, 2018, former counsel for the Messina Defendants
notified the Court that they had been terminated and moved to
withdraw as counsel. See ECF No. 17 (Howard & Howard
Attorneys PLLC and Jonathan W. Fountain's Motion to
Withdraw as Counsel). On or about January 3, 2019, the
undersigned counsel for the Messina Defendants agreed to be
retained on the representations of the undersigned counsel
for Plaintiffs that Plaintiffs would agree to the prior order
to permit the newly retained counsel for the Messina
Defendants time to assess the case before having to respond
to the Complaint. Subsequent to that extension, the
undersigned counsel for the Messina Defendants commenced
discussions with Plaintiffs' counsel to explore the
potential to resolve the matter, to wit, by means of an
extensive, written analysis of the non-infringement, patent
validity and alleged false advertising issues in the case.
March 7, 2019, the Court granted the parties' request to
extend the deadline for Defendants to respond to permit
Plaintiffs' counsel to engage in discussions with subject
matter experts on issues related to the patents prior to
requiring Defendants to answer or respond. See ECF No. 27.
While this was only the first extension since the Messina
Defendants' retention of their current counsel, it was
the fourth request from the commencement of the action. The
purpose of that extension was to provide a window for the
parties to continue settlement discussions. Id.
March 27, 2019, the parties requested an additional extension
to afford Plaintiffs additional time to conclude discussions
with subject matter experts and follow-up with counsel for
Defendants. That occurred, but at a date too near the
deadline to permit Defendants to assess the same or for the
parties to otherwise conclude negotiations.
April 25, 2019, the parties again requested an additional
extension through June 14, 2019 to allow time for the
Defendants to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint to
permit Defendants to consult with their counsel on
Plaintiffs' proposal and to thereafter continue to engage
in efforts to assess whether a resolution of the dispute
could be achieved. See ECF No. 31. The additional time
resulted in a further substantive analysis by Defendants,
which Plaintiffs are now considering. In the course of such
consideration, on May 17, 2019, Plaintiffs filed their First
Amended Complaint. See ECF No. 32.
time of the June 14, 2019 deadline, the parties realized more
time would be required, but Plaintiffs' counsel was
unable to obtain timely authorization of an extended deadline
and, consequently, agreed to a brief extension of the
deadline for Defendants to answer or otherwise respond to the
Amended Complaint through June 28, 2019, which the Court
"so ordered" on June 17, 2019. See ECF No. 36. The
parties now agree to an extended deadline through September
3, 2019 with the expectation that they will be able to
resolve the case within this time period.
foregoing reason, the parties hereby stipulate to extend the
deadline for the Messina Defendants to answer or otherwise
respond to the Amended ...