United States District Court, D. Nevada
Olson (NV Bar No. 3783) V.R. Bohman (NV Bar No. 13075) SNELL
& WILMER L.L.P. James D. McCarthy (admitted pro hac vice)
Jason P. Fulton (admitted pro hac vice) DIAMOND MCCARTHY, LLP
Attorneys for Snow Covered Capital, LLC
STIPULATION TO EXTEND RESPONSE DATE FOR POTENTIAL
THIRD PARTY DEFENDANTS NELLIE LLC, 1421 CAPITAL LLC, AND
ASSOCIATE CAPITAL LLC (FIRST REQUEST)
to LR 7-1, LR IA 601, and LR IA 602, Plaintiff Snow Covered
Capital, LLC (“SCC”) and Defendants Fonfa,
Weidner, and Jacoby, and Defendant Lucky Dragon L.P.
(“LDLP”) stipulate and agree that potential third
party defendants Nellie LLC, 1421 Capital LLC, and Associate
Capital LLC (collectively, the “Potential Third Party
Defendants”) shall have up to and including
October 15, 2019 to file their response(s)
to the claims that LDLP has asserted against them.
April 8, 2019, Plaintiff Snow Covered Capital, LLC filed its
complaint in this proceeding (ECF No. 1).
June 18, 2019, Defendants Weidner and Jacoby filed their
Answer (ECF No. 21) in response to the SCC Complaint.
June 18, 2019, Defendant LDLP filed its Answer and
Counterclaims (ECF No. 19) in response to the SCC Complaint.
The “Counterclaims” asserted therein included
claims against the Potential Third Party Defendants.
June 19, 2019, Defendant Fonfa filed his Answer (ECF No. 22)
in response to the SCC Complaint.
July 9, 2019, SCC filed a motion to dismiss the Counterclaims
that Defendant LDLP had asserted against SCC (ECF No. 50).
July 19, 2019, the parties entered into a stipulation (ECF
No. 56) setting a July 30, 2019 response date for SCC's
motion to dismiss the LDLP Counterclaims. This stipulation
was endorsed by this Court on July 23, 2019 (ECF No. 57).
July 30, 2019, Defendant LDLP filed its response to the SCC
motion to dismiss (ECF No. 64), and also filed an Amended
Answer and Counterclaim (ECF No. 61, the “FAAC”).
That amended pleading asserted the same Counterclaims against
the Potential Third Party Defendants.
Court subsequently held (ECF No. 73, filed August 7, 2019)
that the FAAC superseded the complaint to which SCC's
July 9, 2019 motion to dismiss (ECF No. 50) had been directed
and so mooted the existing SCC motion to dismiss. In the wake
of that ruling, SCC filed an updated motion to dismiss
directed to the FAAC (ECF No. 82)..
Because the FAAC similarly mooted SCC's then-pending
Motion to Strike the original LDLP Answer and Counterclaims
(ECF No. 52),, that motion to strike was withdrawn (ECF No.
80) and SCC filed an updated motion to strike directed to the
FAAC (ECF No. 85).
Defendant LDLP did not serve the Potential Third Party
Defendants with either its original Answer and Counterclaims
or the FAAC.
August 9, 2019, however, Counsel for Defendant LDLP (Gary
Milne) contacted SCC Counsel (Jim McCarthy) to ask if the
Potential Third Party Defendants would waive service of ...