Ribeiro et al v. Baby Trend, Inc.

Filing 424

ORDER that the motion to extend response deadline (Filing No. 416 ) filed by Plaintiffs is granted. The motion to dismiss (Filing No. 393 ) filed by Defendant Maxi Miliaan, B.V and the motion to dismiss (Filing No. 394 ) filed by Defendant Dorel Industries, Inc. shall be held in abeyance until the Lerado defendants' liability is resolved in the underlying action. In the event the Lerado defendants are found liable, the court will re-set the briefing schedule a reasonable time thereafter as to Dorel and Maxi's motions to dismiss (Filing No. 393 and Filing No. 394 ). Ordered by Magistrate Judge F.A. Gossett. (LAC)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
FRANCO RIBEIRO and DEANNA
RIBEIRO, as individuals and as next
friends and biological parents of
Lucas Ribeiro, an infant,
Plaintiffs,
v.
BABY TREND, INC., a corporation,
MARK SEDLACK, MILLENIUM
DEVELOPMENT CORP., INDIANA
MILLS & MANUFACTURING INC.,
LERADO GROUP CO., LTD.,
LERADO GROUP
(HOLDING)
COMPANY,
LTD.,
LERADO
(ZHONG SHAN) INDUSTRIAL CO.,
LTD., LERADO CHINA LIMITED,
LERADO
H.K.
LIMITED,
HOLMBERGS SAFETY SYSTEM
HOLDING AB, GNOSJOGRUPPEN
AB, HOLMBERGS CHILDSAFETY
AB, GNOTEC REFTELE AB, Maxi
MILIAAN
B.V.,
and
DOREL
INDUSTRIES, INC.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

8:12CV204
ORDER

This matter is before the court on the motion for leave to extend (Filing No. 416)
filed by Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs request an order extending the deadline to respond to the
Motions to Dismiss (Filing No. 393 and Filing No. 394) filed by Defendants Dorel
Industries, Inc., (“Dorel”) and Maxi Miliaan B.V. (“Maxi”), until the underlying case is
resolved.
Dorel and Maxi were added as defendants in the Plaintiffs’ Seventh Amended
Complaint. (Filing No. 328). Plaintiffs allege that the liability of Dorel and Maxi is
1

contingent upon the liability of the “Lerado” defendants because Dorel and Maxi are
Lerado’s successors in interest. (Filing No. 319 at p. 2). On December 29, 2015, this
court bifurcated the successor liability portion of this case, ordering that it would be
addressed, if necessary, “following resolution of the underlying liability matters in this
action.” (Filing No. 324).
Dorel and Maxi have filed a response to the present motion affirmatively stating that
they do not oppose Plaintiffs’ motion for an extension of time to respond to Dorel’s and
Maxi’s motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction until after the liability of the
Lerado defendants is determined. (Filing No. 422). Therefore, the court finds Plaintiffs’
motion should be granted. Dorel’s and Maxi’s motions to dismiss shall be held in
abeyance until the Lerado defendants’ liability is determined in the underlying case.
Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED:
1.

The motion to extend response deadline (Filing No. 416) filed by Plaintiffs is

granted.
2.

The motion to dismiss (Filing No. 393) filed by Defendant Maxi Miliaan, B.V and

the motion to dismiss (Filing No. 394) filed by Defendant Dorel Industries, Inc. shall be
held in abeyance until the Lerado defendants’ liability is resolved in the underlying action.
3.

In the event the Lerado defendants are found liable, the court will re-set the briefing

schedule a reasonable time thereafter as to Dorel and Maxi’s motions to dismiss (Filing No.
393 and Filing No. 394).
DATED: April 18, 2016.
BY THE COURT:
s/ F.A. Gossett
United States Magistrate Judge
2