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.

Wingen v. Ventrum Energy Corp.

United States District Court, D. Nevada

November 13, 2019

PHILIP WINGEN, et al. Plaintiffs,
v.
VENTRUM ENERGY CORP., et al. Defendants.

          STELLAR PACIFIC BUSINESS LAW PLLC Fara Daun Pro Hac Vice GARMAN TURNER GORDON LLP DYLAN T. CICILIANO Attorneys for Plaintiffs Philip and Karen Wingen

          PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND CALENDAR CALL (PLAINTIFFS' SECOND REQUEST)

         COME NOW Plaintiffs Phillip Wingen and Karen Wingen (the “Wingens”) and hereby move that the trial in this case currently scheduled to begin on November 18, 2019 and the corresponding calendar call, currently scheduled for November 13, 2019, be continued. This Motion is made and based upon all of the papers and pleadings on file herein as well as the following Points and Authorities.

         POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

         On January 9, 2019, the parties herein submitted their proposed Joint Pretrial Order which stipulated to a bench trial and included proposed dates for trial of May 6, 13, and 20. (ECF No. 162.) The Court entered a June 3, 2019 Trial date and a May 29, 2019 Calendar Call. (ECF No. 163.)

         On March 8, 2019, the Fossil Defendants filed a Motion to Continue Trial and Calendar Call (ECF No. 166) due to longstanding plans by Fossil's Council to be out of the country from June 2, 2019 to June 23, 2019. On April 15, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Non Opposition. (ECF No. 168). On April 19, 2019, the Court granted the Motion and Ordered the trial to be set for July 29, 2019 on the stacked calendar with a Calendar Call on July 24, 2019.

         On June 7, 2019 Plaintiffs and the Fossil Defendants filed a Stipulation and Order for Dismissal with Prejudice of Defendants Montgomery George; Paul Grady and Jane Doe Grady; William Sturdevant; Tari Vickery; Fossil Energy, Inc., and West Salt Creek, Inc. This Court entered the Order dismissing the Fossil Defendants on June 12, 2019. (ECF No. 171.)

         Following the dismissal of the Fossil Defendants, all of the defendants in the case have either been dismissed or have defaulted as follows:

Defendant

Clerk's Default Entered

ECF No.

Ventrum Energy Inc.

February 1, 2016

ECF No. 89

Salt Creek West Drilling Fund, LLP

February 1, 2016

ECF No. 89

Ventrum Louisiana, LLP

February 1, 2016

ECF No. 89

Mackel America Corp.

February 1, 2016

ECF No. 89

NV America Corp.

February 1, 2016

ECF No. 89

Andrew T. Van Slee (aka Andrew Slee)

April 1, 2016

ECF No. 100

Mary Hill

July 10, 2017

ECF No. 133

Danial Hassanpoor

March 7, 2019

ECF No. 165

Defendant

Dismissal Ordered

ECF No.

CGrowth Capital, Inc.

March 30, 2018

ECF No.146

Keystone Financial Management, Inc.

March 30, 2018

ECF No.146

William M. Wright, III

March 30, 2018

ECF No.146

Jane Doe Wright

March 30, 2018

ECF No.146

Kathrin (Catherin) Elkins

May 4, 2018

ECF No. 154

John Doe Elkins

May 4, 2018

ECF No. 154

Samco Oil, LLC

May 4, 2018

ECF No. 154

BKV Ventures, LLC

May 4, 2018

ECF No. 154

Doe Defendants 1-50

May 4, 2018

ECF No. 154

Avihail Kochlani

May 23, 2018

ECF No. 156

Tami (Jane Doe) Kochlani

May 23, 2018

ECF No. 156

Fossil Energy, Inc.

June 12, 2019

ECF No. 171

West Salt Creek, Inc.

June 12, 2019

ECF No. 171

Montgomery George

June 12, 2019

ECF No. 171

Paul Grady

June 12, 2019

ECF No. 171

Jane Doe Grady

June 12, 2019

ECF No. 171

William Sturdevant

June 12, 2019

ECF No. 171

Tari Vickery

June 12, 2019

ECF No. 171

         Because the CGrowth Defendants were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, their crossclaim against Ventrum Energy Corp. ended with the end of their participation in the case.

         Plaintiffs have filed a consolidated Motion for Default Judgment against the eight defendants subject to Clerk's Defaults (ECF # 176) but the court has not had opportunity to issue an order. Because the Defendants against whom a Default Judgment is sought are the only remaining defendants, Plaintiffs request that the court continue the trial date and associated calendar call in this action.

         CONCLUSION

         Based on the foregoing, the trial date and associated calendar call in ...


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.