MGM Resorts International Operations, Inc. v. Avero, LLC
Filing
17
ORDER Granting 16 Stipulation to Extend Time to Answer 6 Amended Complaint. Avero, LLC answer due 11/14/2012. Plaintiff's response to answer due by 12/14/2012. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 10/30/12. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - EDS)
Case 2:12-cv-00472-JCM -PAL Document 16
1
6
NICHOLAS J. SANTORO, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 0532
nsantoro@santoronevada.com
JASON D. SMITH, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 9691
jsmith@santoronevada.com
SANTORO WHITMIRE
10001 Park Run Drive
Las Vegas, Nevada 89145
Telephone: 702/948-8771
Facsimile:
702/948-8773
7
Filed 10/26/12 Page 1 of 3
Attorneys for Defendant AVERO, LLC
2
3
4
5
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
10
SANTORO WHITMIRE
10001 Park Run Drive, Las Vegas, Nevada 89145
(702) 948-8771 – fax (702) 948-8773
11
MGM RESORTS INTERNATIONAL
OPERATIONS, INC., a Nevada
corporation,
Case No. 2:12-cv-0472-JCM-PAL
12
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
15
16
AVERO, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company,
STIPULATION AND
ORDER RE DEADLINE TO
RESPOND TO FIRST AMENDED
COMPLAINT
(FIFTH REQUEST)
Defendant.
17
18
19
WHEREAS, on March 20, 2012, Plaintiff commenced this action by filing a Complaint
in this court (docket no. 1);
20
WHEREAS, July 13, 2012, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (docket no. 6);
21
WHEREAS, on July 16, 2012, Plaintiff served the First Amended Complaint and
22
Summons on Defendant;
23
WHEREAS, the parties previously agreed to extend Defendant’s deadline to answer,
24
move against, or otherwise respond to the First Amended Complaint and for Plaintiff’s deadline
25
to reply thereto;
26
WHEREAS, the Court entered Orders approving the parties’ previous stipulations
27
(docket nos. 9, 11, 13 and 15) and in the most recent approval indicated that no further
28
extensions would be granted;
Case 2:12-cv-00472-JCM -PAL Document 16
Filed 10/26/12 Page 2 of 3
1
WHEREAS, the parties have agreed on most of the key terms of settlement, have
2
exchanged two rounds of drafts of the settlement agreement, and believe that agreement on the
3
final changes is imminent;
4
WHERAS, the parties recently agreed to include a non-party signatory to the agreement
5
(Jonathan Tuzman, a former Avero employee now employed by MGM) and Mr. Tuzman will
6
need time to consult counsel regarding execution of the settlement agreement;
7
WHEREAS, the parties desire to avoid Avero unnecessarily incurring attorneys’ fees and
8
to prepare and file an answer or other responsive pleading when settlement is imminent and
9
when such expenditure could negatively impact finalizing settlement;
WHEREAS, under the circumstances, the parties request that the Court grant an
11
(702) 948-8771 – fax (702) 948-8773
SANTORO WHITMIRE
10001 Park Run Drive, Las Vegas, Nevada 89145
10
additional extension of time for Avero to answer or otherwise respond to the First Amended
12
Complaint by fourteen (14) days;
13
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED BY AND AMONG THE
14
PARTIES HERETO AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD THAT Defendant’s deadline to
15
answer, move against, or otherwise respond to the First Amended Complaint shall be November
16
14, 2012, and Plaintiff’s deadline to respond to Defendant’s filing shall be December 14, 2012.
17
DATED: October 26, 2012
LEWIS AND ROCA LLP
//s// Michael J. McCue
Michael J. McCue
Jonathan W. Fountain
18
19
20
Attorneys for Plaintiff MGM Resorts
International Operations, Inc.
21
22
DATED: October 26, 2012
SANTORO WHITMIRE
23
24
25
26
27
//s// Nicholas J. Santoro
Nicholas J. Santoro
Jason D. Smith
Attorneys for Defendant AVERO, LLC
* * * * *
28
-2-
Case 2:12-cv-00472-JCM -PAL Document 16
Filed 10/26/12 Page 3 of 3
IT IS SO ORDERED:
1
2
DATED:
3
__________________________________
4
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
5
6
7
8
9
11
(702) 948-8771 – fax (702) 948-8773
SANTORO WHITMIRE
10001 Park Run Drive, Las Vegas, Nevada 89145
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-
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?