Millennium Drilling Co., Inc. v. House-Meyers et al
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)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
MILLENNIUM DRILLING CO., INC., a
Case No. 2:12-cv-00462-MMD-CWH
BEVERLY HOUSE-MEYERS, BEVERY
HOUSE-MEYERS REVOCABLE TRUST,
GRACE MAE PROPERTIES, LLC,
HAMRICK TRUST, ROBERT H.
HAMRICK, MOLLY KAY HAMRICK,
MOLLY HAMRICK, BEVERLY HOUSEMYERS, R&M HAMRICK FAMILY TRUST,
JONATHAN FELDMAN, MONTCALM,
LLC, PATRIOT EXPLORATION
COMPANY, LLC, CARTER HENSON,
JR., MATTHEW BARNES, ROBERT
HOLT, ELIZABETH HOLT, and
SCHAIN, LEIFER, GURALNICK,
Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion to Conduct Discovery and
Unopposed Motion For Extension of Time to Respond to Third-Party Defendant
Montcalm Co., LLC and Matthew Barnes’ Amended Motion to Dismiss the Third-Party
Complaint for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2). (Dkt.
no. 82.) The parties have apparently reached an agreement on the scope of
jurisdictional discovery but the agreement was contingent on Plaintiffs’ agreeing to a stay
of discovery. The Court ordered that any response to Plaintiffs’ Motion be filed by June
14, 2013. No response was filed.1
The Court previously granted Plaintiffs’ request for an extension of time to
respond to Defendant Schain Leifer Guralnick’s (“SLG”) First Amended Motion to
Dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), finding good cause exists to
permit Plaintiffs the opportunity to conduct jurisdictional discovery. For the same reason,
the Court grants Plaintiffs’ Motion and adopts in part the schedule proposed in
Paragraph 5 of Plaintiffs’ Motion. The deadline for Plaintiffs to respond to Defendants’
Amended Motion to Dismiss will be extended to three weeks after completion of Barnes’
deposition. Defendants will have two 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.
DATED THIS 20th day of June 2013.
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?