Millennium Drilling Co., Inc. v. House-Meyers et al

Filing 87

ORDER Granting 82 Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion to Extend Time to Respond to 81 Defendants'Amended Motion to Dismiss. The deadline for Plaintiffs to respond to Defendants Amended Motion to Dismiss will be extended to 3 weeks after completion of Barnes deposition. Defendants will have 2 weeks to file their reply brief. The parties are ordered to file a joint status report to inform the Court of the date of Barnes deposition scheduled to occur in August 2013. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 06/20/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AC)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

MILLENNIUM DRILLING CO., INC., a
Delaware corporation,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 2:12-cv-00462-MMD-CWH
ORDER

v.
BEVERLY HOUSE-MEYERS, BEVERY
HOUSE-MEYERS REVOCABLE TRUST,
GRACE MAE PROPERTIES, LLC,
HAMRICK TRUST, ROBERT H.
HAMRICK, MOLLY KAY HAMRICK,
Trustees,
Defendants.
MOLLY HAMRICK, BEVERLY HOUSEMYERS, R&M HAMRICK FAMILY TRUST,
Third-Party Plaintiffs,
v.
JONATHAN FELDMAN, MONTCALM,
LLC, PATRIOT EXPLORATION
COMPANY, LLC, CARTER HENSON,
JR., MATTHEW BARNES, ROBERT
HOLT, ELIZABETH HOLT, and
SCHAIN, LEIFER, GURALNICK,
Third-Party Defendants.

23
24

Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion to Conduct Discovery and

25

Unopposed Motion For Extension of Time to Respond to Third-Party Defendant

26

Montcalm Co., LLC and Matthew Barnes’ Amended Motion to Dismiss the Third-Party

27

Complaint for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2). (Dkt.

28

no. 82.) The parties have apparently reached an agreement on the scope of

1

jurisdictional discovery but the agreement was contingent on Plaintiffs’ agreeing to a stay

2

of discovery. The Court ordered that any response to Plaintiffs’ Motion be filed by June

3

14, 2013. No response was filed.1

4

The Court previously granted Plaintiffs’ request for an extension of time to

5

respond to Defendant Schain Leifer Guralnick’s (“SLG”) First Amended Motion to

6

Dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), finding good cause exists to

7

permit Plaintiffs the opportunity to conduct jurisdictional discovery. For the same reason,

8

the Court grants Plaintiffs’ Motion and adopts in part the schedule proposed in

9

Paragraph 5 of Plaintiffs’ Motion. The deadline for Plaintiffs to respond to Defendants’

10

Amended Motion to Dismiss will be extended to three weeks after completion of Barnes’

11

deposition. Defendants will have two weeks to file their reply brief. The parties are

12

ordered to file a joint status report to inform the Court of the date of Barnes’ deposition

13

scheduled to occur in August 2013.

14

DATED THIS 20th day of June 2013.

15
16
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Defendants Matthew Barnes and Montcalm have filed a Motion to Stay Discovery
pending a determination of their amended motion to dismiss. (Dkt. no. 84.) This Motion
will be addressed in a separate order following completion of the briefing schedule.

2