U-Swirl, Inc. et al v. Cherryberry Enterprises et al

Filing 32

MINUTE ORDER; 29 Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendants UnopposedMotion for Temporary Stay to Answer is GRANTED in part to the extent it seeks an extension of its deadline to respond to the counterclaims assertedagainst it. Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defen dant shall respond to the counterclaims asserted against it on or before January 12, 2016. 31 Third-Party Defendants Second Agreed To Motion for Extension of Time to Answer or Otherwise Respond to Third Party Complaint is GRANTED. Rocky Mountain Chocolate Factory, Inc. answer due on or before 1/12/2016, by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 11/17/15.(morti, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 15-cv-02147-KLM
U-SWIRL INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Nevada corporation,
Plaintiff,
and
U-SWIRL, INC., a Nevada corporation, and
Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant,
v.
DJRJ ENTERPRISES, LLC, formerly known as Cherryberry Enterprises LLC, an Oklahoma
limited liability company,
DJRJ CORPORATE, LLC, formerly known as Cherryberry Corporate LLC, an Oklahoma
limited liability company, and
DJRJ, LLC, formerly known as CHERRYBERRY LLC, an Oklahoma limited liability
company,
Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs/Third-Party Plaintiffs,
and
DALLAS JONES, individually,
ROBYN JONES, individually,
ULDERICO CONTE, individually, and
OTHER UNKNOWN INDIVIDUALS,
Defendants,
v.
ROCKY MOUNTAIN CHOCOLATE FACTORY, INC., a Colorado corporation,
Third-Party Defendant.
_____________________________________________________________________
MINUTE ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
1

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant’s Unopposed
Motion for Temporary Stay to Answer [#29]1 (“Plaintiff’s Motion”) and Third-Party
Defendant’s Second Agreed To Motion for Extension of Time to Answer or Otherwise
Respond to Third Party Complaint [#31] (“RMCF’s Motion”). Plaintiff’s Motion explains
that the parties are scheduling mediation and, in order to conserve resources, requests
either a “stay” of Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant’s deadline to respond to the
counterclaims or an unspecified extension of that deadline. Plaintiff’s Motion [#29] at 2.
RMCF’s Motion notes that due to the scheduling of mediation in this case, “[t]he [p]arties
have conferred and agreed to an extension of the answer deadline” and requests a 60-day
extension of its deadline to respond to the Third-Party Complaint. RMCF’s Motion [#31]
at 3. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion [#29] is GRANTED in part to the
extent it seeks an extension of its deadline to respond to the counterclaims asserted
against it. Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant shall respond to the counterclaims asserted
against it on or before January 12, 2016.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that RMCF’s Motion [#31] is GRANTED. RMCF shall
respond to the Third-Party Complaint on or before January 12, 2016.
Dated: November 17, 2015

1

“[#29]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to
a specific paper by the Court’s case management and electronic case filing system (CM/ECF). I
use this convention throughout this Minute Order.

2