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

November 8, 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

          ROBERT T. EGLET, ESQ. (NBN 3402) ROBERT M. ADAMS, ESQ. (NBN 6551) RICHARD K. HY, ESQ. (NBN 12406)

          JONATHAN E. LOWY, ESQ. (PVH) Attorneys for Plaintiffs

          STIPULATION AND ORDER SETTING DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT (FOURTH REQUEST)

         Pursuant to LR IA 6-1 and this Court's Minute Order dated November 4, 2019 (ECF No. 66), [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 was 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 (the “SAC”) to address those claims of the FAC which were dismissed without prejudice and with leave to amend.

         7. On October 17, 2019 this Court entered an Order granting the Parties' stipulation to extend the deadline for Plaintiffs to file a SAC to October 31, 2019, and, should Plaintiffs file such a pleading, setting the deadline for Defendants to respond to the SAC (ECF No. 64).

         8. Plaintiffs elected to not file a SAC in response to the extended deadline to do so.

         9. Thus, in light of the MTD Order, Defendant must file a responsive pleading to the FAC. The Parties hereby agree that Defendant must file its responsive ...


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.