United States District Court, D. Nevada
DEVON PRESCOTT, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated; BROOKE FREEMAN, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
SLIDE FIRE SOLUTIONS, LP, a Foreign Corporation; DOE MANUFACTURERS 1 - 100, inclusive; and ROE RETAILERS 1- 100, inclusive, Defendants.
D. BOYLE, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 08384 F. THOMAS EDWARDS, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 09549 HOLLEY DRIGGS WALCH FINE WRAY PUZEY
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
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
to LR IA 6-1 and this Court's Minute Order dated November
4, 2019 (ECF No. 66),  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
Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Class Action Complaint
(the “FAC”) on October 8, 2018 (ECF No. 29).
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)
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).
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.
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.
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.
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).
Plaintiffs elected to not file a SAC in response to the
extended deadline to do so.
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 ...