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.

Prescott v. Slide Fire Solutions, LP

United States District Court, D. Nevada

October 11, 2019

DEVON PRESCOTT, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated; BROOKE FREEMAN, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v.
SLIDE FIRE SOLUTIONS, LP, a Foreign Corporation; DOE MANUFACTURERS 1 -100, inclusive; and ROE RETAILERS 1-100, inclusive, Defendants.

          JAMES D. BOYLE, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 08384, F. THOMAS EDWARDS, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 09549, HOLLEY DRIGGS WALCH FINE WRAY PUZEY & THOMPSON, JEFFREY MALSCH, ESQ. (Admitted Pro Hac Vice), DANNY C. LALLIS, ESQ. (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) PISCIOTTI MALSCH PC Attorneys for Defendant Slide Fire Solutions, LP

          EGLET PRINCE, ROBERT T. EGLET, ESQ. (NBN 3402), ROBERT M. ADAMS, ESQ. (NBN 6551), RICHARD K. HY, ESQ. (NBN 12406), BRADLEY CENTER TO PREVENT GUN VIOLENCE JONATHAN E. LOWY, ESQ. (PVH) Attorneys for Plaintiffs

          STIPULATION AND ORDER TO DEFER DEFENDANT SLIDE FIRE SOLUTIONS, LP.'S DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT (SECOND REQUEST)

         Pursuant to LR IA 6-1, Plaintiffs DEVON PRESCOTT and BROOKE FREEMAN ("Plaintiffs"), and Defendant SLIDE FIRE SOLUTIONS, LP ("Defendant"), by and through the parties' respective counsel, hereby STIPULATE AND AGREE as follows:

         1. Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Class Action Complaint (the "FAC") on October 8, 2018 (ECF No. 29).

         2. On October 19, 2018, this Court granted a Stipulation and Order to Extend and Set Briefing Schedule Regarding Defendant Slide Fire Solutions, L.P.'s Response to Plaintiffs' First Amended Class Action Complaint (First Request) (ECF No. 32) (the "MTD").

         3. Defendant filed its Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Class Action Complaint Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) on November 2, 2018 (ECF No. 34). Plaintiffs filed a response to this motion (ECF No. 35) and Defendant filed its reply in support thereof (ECF No. 36).

         4. On September 26, 2019, this Court entered an Order as to the MTD (ECF No. 58) (the "MTD Order"). In its MTD Order, this Court: (a) dismissed four claims of the FAC with prejudice; (b) dismissed six claims of the FAC without prejudice, with leave to amend; and (c) sustained one claim of the FAC. See MTD Order, at 30:16-25.

         5. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(a)(4)(A), Defendants' responsive pleading to the sole remaining claim of the FAC is presently due on or before October 10, 2019.

         6. Pursuant to the MTD Order, Plaintiffs were granted through October 17, 2019 to file a Second Amended Complaint to address those claims of the FAC which were dismissed without prejudice and with leave to amend.

         7. Insofar as the deadline for Defendants to respond to the sole remaining claim of the FAC precedes the deadline for Plaintiffs to file a Second Amended Complaint, and further insofar as counsel for Plaintiffs has indicated that Plaintiffs intend to file a Second Amended Complaint on or before October 17, 2019, counsel agree to the following:

a. The deadline for Defendants to file a responsive pleading to the FAC, if any, shall be extended by and through November 1, 2019.
b. If Plaintiffs file a Second Amended Complaint on or before October 17, 2019 as permitted in the MTD Order, Defendants shall not be required to file a responsive pleading to the FAC; and
c. If Plaintiffs file a Second Amended Complaint on or before October 17, 2019 as permitted in the MTD Order, Defendants shall file a responsive pleading or motion to the Second Amended Complaint on or before November 8, 2019.

         This is the second extension requested in connection with submission of a responsive pleading to the FAC. The purpose of requesting this extension is due to the overlapping deadlines set under the MTD Order and Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(4)(A). An extension of time and possible vacating of the deadline for Defendants to respond to the FAC, based on the filing of a Second Amended Complaint, will conserve judicial and client ...


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.