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.

Switch, Ltd. v. Uptime Institute, LLC

United States District Court, D. Nevada

August 28, 2019

SWITCH, LTD., a Nevada corporation, Plaintiff,
v.
UPTIME INSTITUTE, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and UPTIME INSTITUTE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendants.

          JAMES D. BOYLE, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 08384

          JOANNA M. MYERS, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 12048

          HOLLEY DRIGGS WALCH FINE PUZEY STEIN & THOMPSON Attorneys for Plaintiff Switch, Ltd.

          STIPULATION AND ORDER TO AMEND BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON DEFENDANTS' PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (FIRST REQUEST)

          GLORIA M. NAVARRO, CHIEF JUDGE

         Pursuant to LR IA 6-1, Plaintiff Switch Ltd. ("Switch") and Defendants Uptime Institute, LLC and Uptime Institute Professional Services, LLC (together, "Uptime") (and with Switch, the "Parties), by and through their undersigned counsel of record, hereby submit this Stipulation and Order to Amend Briefing Schedule On Defendants' Partial Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint (the "Stipulation"). This Stipulation is respectfully submitted with regard to the remaining briefing schedule on Uptime's Partial Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint (the "Partial Motion to Dismiss"), which Uptime filed on August 15, 2019 (ECF No. 19). This is the Parties' first request for an extension of the briefing schedule regarding the Partial Motion to Dismiss.

         In support of the Stipulation, the Parties report as follows:

         1. Switch filed its initial Complaint (the "Initial Complaint") on April 11, 2019. (ECF No. 1).

         2. On July 10, 2019 Uptime filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint (the "Motion to Dismiss") pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12, requesting that this Court dismiss each of the claims alleged by Switch in the Initial Complaint on based on contentions of lack of subject matter jurisdiction, failure to comply with the pleading requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b), lack of particularity, and lack of an "actual controversy" to support declaratory relief. (ECF No. 14).

         3. Without conceding the merits of the Motion to Dismiss, on July 31, 2019 Switch filed a First Amended Complaint (the "FAC") pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(1)(B) (ECF No. 15).

         4. In response to the FAC, Uptime filed its Partial Motion to Dismiss on August 14, 2019. Switch's deadline to file a response brief is presently set on August 28, 2019, and Uptime's deadline to file a reply brief is seven (7) days from the date that Switch files its responsive brief. See LRII 7-2(b).

         5. By this Stipulation, Switch requests an extension of six (6) days to file a response to the Partial Motion to Dismiss, with the revised deadline being September 3, 2019. Uptime consents to this request by Switch. However, with that extension, Uptime would then effectively have fewer than the standard seven days for reply, due to preexisting scheduling issues during the new reply period, including an intensive multi-day meeting arranged months ago, involving more than twelve people convening from various countries. Accordingly, Uptime has requested that, if the Court grants the request by Switch for an extension, the Court should add two days to the standard seven-day period for reply. Hence, the revised deadline for the reply brief would be September 12, 2019. Switch consents to this request by Uptime.

         6. Pursuant to LR IA 6-1(a), Switch respectfully requests the extensions set forth herein in order to accommodate scheduling conflicts of counsel involving previously calendared vacations and unrelated litigation. Specifically, counsel for Switch is involved in a complex arbitration matter for which considerable trade secret discovery is due prior to August 28, 2019, in addition to a previously-scheduled personal trip outside of Nevada. Uptime's counsel has graciously consented to accommodate these scheduling issues.

         7. The Parties respectfully suggest that no undue prejudice or delay will occur in these proceedings based on the requested extension to the briefing schedule on the Partial Motion to Dismiss. In addition, the Parties continue to diligently work on discovery-related issues including the preparation of Initial Disclosures pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a), the preparation of a [Proposed] Joint Protective Order, and preparation of an ESI-protocol.

         8. For the foregoing reasons, Switch respectfully requests that this Court permit Switch to file a response brief to the Partial Motion to Dismiss on or before September 3, 2019, and Uptime respectfully requests to file its reply brief in support ...


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.