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.

Fir Tree Capital Management LP v. Compartment IT2, LP

United States District Court, D. Nevada

July 1, 2019

FIR TREE CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LP f/k/a FIR TREE INC. d/b/a FIR TREE PARTNERS, and FT CIG LITIGATION, LLC, as assignee of FIR TREE CAPITAL OPPORTUNITY (LN) MASTER FUND, L.P. AND FIR TREE REF III TOWER LLC, Plaintiffs,
v.
COMPARTMENT IT2, LP, COMPARTMENT IT5, LP, COMPARTMENT IT9, LP, and MFAM MOBILFUNK ASSET MANAGEMENT GMBH, Defendants.

          J. STEPHEN PEEK, ESQ. ROBERT J. CASSITY, ESQ. HOLLAND & HART LLP SHEILA A. SADIGHI, ESQ. (PRO HAC VICE) NAOMI D. BARROWCLOUGH, ESQ. (PRO HAC VICE) LOWENSTEIN SANDLER LLP ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS FIR TREE CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LP (F/K/A FIR TREE INC.) D/B/A FIR TREE PARTNERS, AND FT CIG LITIGATION, LLC AS ASSIGNEE OF FIR TREE CAPITAL OPPORTUNITY (LN) MASTER FUND, L.P. AND FIR TREE REF III TOWER LLC

          JOE LAXAGUE, ESQ. LAXAGUE LAW, INC. ROGER A. LANE, EQ. (PRO HAC VICE) FOLEY & LARDNER, LLP ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS

          STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND TIME TO SUBMIT DISCOVERY PLAN/SCHEDULING ORDER (FIRST REQUEST)

          Plaintiffs and all named Defendants herein, by and through their attorneys of record, hereby stipulate and move the Court to extend the deadline for the Parties to submit a stipulated Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order pursuant to FRCP 26(f) and LR 26-1. Although the Parties have previously submitted stipulations requesting the Court to extend the time for the Parties to file or oppose a previous motion to dismiss (see ECF No. 15, ECF No. 17, and ECF No. 25) and withdraw said motion to dismiss to allow Plaintiffs to amend their complaint (ECF No. 29), this is the first stipulation for extension of time to file a stipulated Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order.

         RECITALS

         On November 9, 2018, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint (ECF No. 11).

         By Order dated November 19, 2018 (ECF No. 16), entered pursuant to a stipulation of the parties (ECF No. 15), the date for Plaintiffs to file their Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss was December 10, 2018, and reply briefs were to be filed by December 20, 2018.

         By Order dated December 10, 2018 (ECF No. 18), entered pursuant to a second stipulation of the parties (ECF No. 17), the date for Plaintiffs to file their Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss was December 17, 2018, and reply briefs were to be filed by January 4, 2019.

         On December 17, 2018, Plaintiffs filed their Response to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 19). By Order dated December 27, 2018 (ECF No. 26), entered pursuant to a third stipulation of the parties (ECF No. 25), the date for Defendants to file their reply brief was January 31, 2019.

         By Order dated January 14, 2019, the Motion to Dismiss was deemed withdrawn, and the date for Plaintiffs to file an Amended Complaint was January 31, 2019, the date for Defendants to file a Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint was March 4, 2019, the date for Plaintiffs to file their Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss was April 5, 2019, and the date for Defendants to file their Reply in Support of the Motion to Dismiss was April 19, 2019.

         The Amended Complaint was filed on January 31, 2019. (ECF No. 31). Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint was filed on March 4, 2019 (ECF No. 33). Plaintiffs' Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss was filed on April 5, 2019 (ECF No. 37). Defendants' Reply in Support of the Motion to Dismiss was filed on April 19, 2019 (ECF No. 39).

         While Plaintiffs and Defendants dispute whether the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss should be granted, the Parties agree that, if granted, the pending motion to dismiss may resolve some or all of the issues. Accordingly, the necessity for, and the scope of, discovery may be affected by the Court's ruling on the pending motion to dismiss.

         The purpose of this stipulation is not intended to hinder or delay, but rather is submitted for purposes of judicial economy. The Parties stipulate, and respectfully request, that the Court extend the deadline for the Parties to submit a proposed Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order Pursuant to FRCP 26(f) and LR 26-1 until 14 days after the Court enters its ruling on the pending motion to dismiss.

         S ...


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.