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.

Snow Covered Capital, LLC v. Weidner

United States District Court, D. Nevada

October 2, 2019

SNOW COVERED CAPITAL, LLC, Plaintiff,
v.
WILLIAM WEIDNER, ANDREW FONFA, DAVID JACOBY, and LUCKY DRAGON LP, Defendants. SHELLEY D. KROHN, Trustee of the LUCKY DRAGON, LP Estate, Counter-claimant,
v.
SNOW COVERED CAPITAL, LLC, NELLIE LLC, 1421 CAPITAL LLC, and ASSOCIATE CAPITAL, LLC, Counter-defendants.

          Bob L. 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)

         ORDER

         Pursuant 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.

         1. On April 8, 2019, Plaintiff Snow Covered Capital, LLC filed its complaint in this proceeding (ECF No. 1).

         2. On June 18, 2019, Defendants Weidner and Jacoby filed their Answer (ECF No. 21) in response to the SCC Complaint.

         3. On 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.

         4. On June 19, 2019, Defendant Fonfa filed his Answer (ECF No. 22) in response to the SCC Complaint.

         5. On July 9, 2019, SCC filed a motion to dismiss the Counterclaims that Defendant LDLP had asserted against SCC (ECF No. 50).

         6. On 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).

         7. On 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.

         8. This 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)..

         9. 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).

         10. Defendant LDLP did not serve the Potential Third Party Defendants with either its original Answer and Counterclaims or the FAAC.

         11. On 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 ...


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.