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.

Alexander v. Meiling

United States District Court, D. Nevada

December 16, 2019

JERRY ALEXANDER, et al,, on behalf themselves and all others similarly situated Plaintiffs,
v.
DEAN MEILING, MADYLON MEILING, JAMES PROCTOR, JANET CHUBB, individuals, CHEMEON SURFACE TECHNOLOGY, LLC, METALAST SURFACE TECHNOLOGY, LLC, D&M-MI, LLC, DSM PARTNERS, LTD., MEILING FAMILY PARTNERS, LTD., and MERIDIAN ADVANTAGE, Defendants.

          JAMES D. BOYLE, ESQ. (NBN 08384) CLARK V. VELLIS, ESQ. (NBN 05533) HOLLEY DRIGGS WALCH FINE PUZEY STEIN & THOMPSON GRACE M, KIM, ESQ. (NBN 09268) MARC Y. LAZO, ESQ. (Admitted PHV) Attorneys for Plaintiffs

          HOLLAND & HART LLP Timothy A. Lukas (NSBN 4678) Robert C. Ryan (NSBN 7164) Joshua M. Halen (NSBN 13885) -and- Brian Neil Hoffman (pro hac vice) -and- Adam Hosmer-Henner (NSBN12779) Phil Mannelly (NSBN 14236) McDONALD CARANO LLP Attorneys for Defendants Dean Meiling, Madylon Meiling, Chemeon Surface Technology, LLC, Metalast Surface Technology, LLC, D&M-MI, LLC, DSM Partners, Ltd., and Meiling Family Partners, Ltd.

          HARTMAN & HARTMAN Jeffrey L. Hartman (NSBN 1607) Attorneys for Defendants James Proctor and Meridian Advantage

          SANTORO WHITMIRE Oliver J. Pancheri (NSBN 7476) Nicholas J. Santoro (NSBN 532) Attorneys for Defendant Janet Chubb

          STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE RESPONSES TO DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND RELATED FILINGS

         Plaintiffs and Defendants, by and through their undersigned counsel stipulate and agree as follows:

         1. On November 19, 2019, Defendants Dean Meiling, Madylon Meiling, Chemeon Surface Technology, LLC, Metalast Surface Technology, LLC, D&M-MI, LLC, DSM Partners, Ltd., and Meiling Family Partners, Ltd. (collectively, “Meiling Defendants”) filed their Renewed Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 134) and Special Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 137), as well as their Request for Judicial Notice related to the Renewed Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 135) and Declaration of Timothy A. Lukas (ECF No. 136) (together, the “Meiling Defendants' Motions”).

         2. On November 22, 2019, Defendant Janet Chubb filed her Motion to Dismiss Claims Contained in Class Action (ECF No. 140) and joinders to the Meiling Defendants' Motions (ECF Nos. 138 and 139) (together, the Chubb Defendant's Motions”).

         3. Pursuant to LR II 7-2(b), Plaintiffs responses to the Meiling Defendants Motions were due on or before December 3, 2019, and their response to the Chubb Defendant Motions was due on or before December 6, 2019.

         4. On December 4, 2019, this Court granted the Parties' stipulation to resetting the due dates for responses to the Meiling Defendants' Motions and the Chubb Defendant's Motions (ECF No. 142), which set a new due date of December 13, 2019. This Stipulat ion furt her extended the deadline for the Meiling Defendants and the Chubb Defendant to file reply briefs to January 3, 2020.

         5. The parties hereby stipulate to extend the deadline for Plaintiffs to respond to the Meiling Defendants' Motions and Chubb Defendant's Motion until December 16, 2019, an extension of three (3) calendar days.

         6. The parties hereby further stipulate to extend the deadline for the Meiling Defendans and the Chubb Defendant to file reply briefs until January 6, 2020, an extension of three (3) calendar days

         7. Pursuant to LR IA 6-1, this second request for an extension for Plaintiffs to file their response briefs and for the Meiling Defendants' Motions and the Chubb Defendant to file their reply briefs. Plaintiffs make this request with good cause and in good faith and not for purposes of delay. The Parties in this action have worked to coordinate the timing for filing pleadings in this case and affiliated cases in a consolidated fashion, and to account for the availability of counsel over the holiday periods. This particular request is made to accommodate the d e p o s i tio n ca le ndar f or P la inti f f s' co unse l in a d iffe r e nt matter a lo ng w i th c omp le x i tie s i n Plaint iffs' review and analysis of draft responses to the Meiling Defendants' Motions and the Chubb Defendant's Motions given the large number of putative class plaintiffs. This is the Parties' second request for an extension of time to file responses to the motions. Counsel do not believe that the brief extension requested herein will cause any undue delay in this action.

         IT IS SO STIPULATED.

         IT ...


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.