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.

Tissue Regeneration Technologies, LLC v. Male Performance Medical Partnership, LLC

United States District Court, D. Nevada

August 30, 2019

TISSUE REGENERATION TECHNOLOGIES, LLC and GENERAL PATENT, LLC, Plaintiffs,
v.
MALE PERFORMANCE MEDICAL PARTNERSHIP, LLC; MEDICAL PARTNERSHIP, LLC; R. BAXTER TEEGARDEN; LEONARD MESSINA; RICHARD NEISWONGER a/k/a RICK CHARLES; LAS VEGAS MALE PERFORMANCE CLINIC; and PEAK HEALTH GROUP LV LLC, Defendants.

          F. Christopher Austin, Esq., WEIDE & MILLER, LTD., Attorneys for Plaintiffs.

          LAW OFFICES OF PHILIP A. KANTOR, P.C., Philip A. Kantor, Esq., Attorneys for Messina Defendants.

          STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO ANSWER OR OTHERWISE RESPOND TO THE COMPLAINT (NINTH REQUEST)

         Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1) and Local Rule 1A 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 Complaint from the current deadline of September 3, 2019, up to and including November 1, 2019. This is the ninth request by the parties for such an extension.

         Good cause for this request exists to provide the parties with time to continue in good faith settlement discussions in this complex patent infringement litigation. On 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.

         On 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 Defendant's retention for 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.

         On March 27, 2019, the parties requested an additional extension to afford Plaintiff's 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 present deadline to permit Defendants to assess the same or for the parties to otherwise conclude negotiations.

         On 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.

         At the 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 agreed to an extended deadline through September 3, 2019 with the expectation that they will be able to resolve the case within this time period.

         The parties have yet to resolve the case, however, based on the due diligence involved and the need to work out terms for settlement they have agreed to extend the time for 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 can be achieved.

         For the foregoing reasons, the parties hereby stipulate to extend the deadline for the Messina Defendants to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint from September 3, 2019, to November 1, 2019.

         IT ...


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.