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 MESSINA; RICHARD NEISWONGER a/k/a RICK CHARLES; LAS VEGAS MALE PERFORMANCE CLINIC; and PEAK HEALTH GROUP LV LLC, Defendants.
Christopher Austin, Esq., WEIDE & MILLER, LTD., Attorneys
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
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.