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.

Diamond Resorts Corp. v. Reed Hein & Associates, LLC

United States District Court, D. Nevada

December 20, 2019

DIAMOND RESORTS CORPORATION, a Maryland corporation, Plaintiffs,
v.
REED HEIN & ASSOCIATES, LLC, d/b/a TIMESHARE EXIT TEAM, a Washington limited liability company; BRANDON REED, an individual and citizen of the State of Washington; TREVOR HEIN, an individual and citizen of Canada; THOMAS PARENTEAU, an individual and citizen of the State of Washington; HAPPY HOUR MEDIA GROUP, LLC, a Washington limited liability company; MITCHELL REED SUSSMAN, ESQ. d/b/a THE LAW OFFICES OF MITCHELL REED SUSSMAN & ASSOCIATES, an individual citizen of the State of California; SCHROETER, GOLDMARK & BENDER, P.S. A Washington professional services corporation; and KEN B. PRIVETT, ESQ., a citizen of Oklahoma, Defendants.

          GREENSPOON MARDER, LLP PHILLIP A. SILVESTRI, ESQ., and RICHARD W. EPSTEIN, ESQ. Admitted Pro Hac Vice JEFFREY BACKMAN, ESQ. Admitted Pro Hac Vice MICHELLE E DURIEUX, ESQ. Admitted Pro Hac Vice and COOPER LEVENSON, P.A. KIMBERLY MAXON-RUSHTON, ESQ., GREGORY KRAEMER, ESQ., Attorneys for Plaintiff Diamond Resorts Corporation.

          GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP ROBERT S. LARSEN, ESQ., DAVID T. GLUTH, II, ESQ., DIONE C. WRENN, ESQ., Attorneys for Defendants Reed Hein & Associates, LLC dba Timeshare Exit Team, Brandon Reed, Trevor Hein, Thomas Parenteau, and Happy Hour Media Group, LLC.

          LIPSON NEILSON, P.C., JOSEPH P. GARIN, ESQ., MEGAN H. HUMMEL, ESQ., Attorneys for Defendant Schroeter, Goldmark & Bender, P.S.

          THE LAW OFFICES OF MITCHELL REED SUSSMAN & ASSOCIATES MITCHELL REED SUSSMAN, ESQ. (Pro Hac Vice) and BAILEY KENNEDY, LLP JOSEPH A. LIEBMAN, ESQ., Attorneys for Defendant Mitchell Reed Sussman Esq. dba The Law Offices of Mitchell Reed Sussman & Associates.

          ALVERSON TAYLOR & SANDERS LEANN SANDERS, ESQ., COURTNEY CHRISTOPHER, ESQ., Attorney for Defendant Ken B. Privett, Esq.

          STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND PLAINTIFF'S DEADLINE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DEFENDANTS' RESPONSES TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT [ECF NO. 59]

         Pursuant to Local Rules 6-1 and 7-1, Plaintiff DIAMOND RESORTS CORPORATION (“DRC”), and Defendants REED HEIN & ASSOCIATES, LLC d/b/a TIMESHARE EXIT TEAM, BRANDON REED, TREVOR HEIN, THOMAS PARENTEAU (collectively, “TET Defendants”), HAPPY HOUR MEDIA GROUP, LLC (“HHMG”), MITCHELL REED SUSSMAN, ESQ. d/b/a THE LAW OFFICES OF MITCHELL REED SUSSMAN & ASSOCIATES (“Sussman”), SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER, P.S. (“SGB”), and KEN B.. PRIVETT, ESQ. (“Privett”), by and through their respective attorneys of record, stipulate as stated below. TET Defendants, HHMG, Sussman, SGB, and Privett are collectively referred to as “Defendants”. DRC and Defendants are collectively referred to herein as the “Parties”.

         STIPULATION

1. DRC, Diamond Resorts International, Inc. (“DRI”), Diamond Resorts U.S. Collection Development, LLC (“DRUSCD”), and Diamond Resorts Management, Inc. (“DRM”) (collectively, “Diamond”) filed an Amended Complaint on January 4, 2019 [ECF No. 59].
2. On February 28, 2019, TET Defendants filed a partial Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint [ECF No. 87] and HHMG filed a Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint [ECF No. 88].
3. On March 25, 2019, Diamond filed responses in opposition to the Motions to Dismiss filed by TET Defendants and HHMG [ECF Nos. 96 & 97].
4. April 8, 2019, TET Defendants filed a Reply in Support of their partial Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 101]. That same day, HHMG filed a Reply in Support of its Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 100].
5. On November 25, 2019, this Court filed an Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part TET Defendants and HHMG's Motions to Dismiss (hereinafter, the “Order”) [ECF No. 141].
6. The Order dismissed Diamond's Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act (“NDTPA”) claim (Count VI) without prejudice, as well as dismissed DRI, DRUSCD, and DRM as plaintiffs, without prejudice.
7. This Court further ordered that Diamond may file an amended complaint by December 23, 2019 to properly plead the NDTPA claim, and to address standing of ...

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.