Federal Trade Commission v. AMG Services, Inc. et al

Filing 33

ORDER on 31 Joinder to 12 Motion to Extend Time to File Response to 4 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction. Responses due by 5/4/2012. Signed by Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 4/17/12. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ASB)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

4
5
6

Federal Trade Commission

Case No.: 2:12-cv-00536-GMN-VCF
ORDER
[PROPOSED] ORDER

Plaintiff,
v.

7
AMG SERVICES, INC., et al
8
9

Before the Court is Defendant Don E. Brady’s Motion to Join Agreed Motion for

10
Extension of Time for Defendants to Respond to the Motion for Preliminary Injunction and
11
12

Other Equitable Relief (Doc. No. 12).

13

On April 11, 2012, several defendants filed an unopposed motion to extend time to

14

respond to the plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction. (Doc. No. 12). Defendant Robert D.

15

Campbell filed a joinder to the motion on April 12, 2012. (Doc. No. 14). Defendant Partner

16
Weekly, LLC filed a motion for extension on April 13, 2012. (Doc. No. 16). Defendants The
17
18

Muir Law Firm, LLC and Timothy J. Muir filed a joinder to defendants’ motion (Doc. No. 12)

19

on April 13, 2012. (Doc. No. 17). Defendants Kim C. Tucker and Park 269, LLC filed a joinder

20

to defendants’ motion (Doc. No. 12) on April 16, 2012. (Doc. No. 19).

21
22

On April 13, 2012, the Court issued an order granting defendants’ motions to extend time
to respond to plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction (#12 and #16), and extending the

23
24

response deadline to May 4, 2012. (#18). The Court held that good cause existed to grant the

25

extension, because (1) plaintiff agreed to the extension, (2) counsel for defendants needed time to

26

review the complex and lengthy filings in this action, (3) the parties are interested in meeting in

27

advance to explore alternatives to litigation, and (4) the extension would provide certain defense

28

-1-

1

counsel the ability to evaluate the appropriate way to resolve the issue of whether defendant is a

2

properly named defendant. Id.

3

On April 17, 2012, defendant Don E. Brady filed the present motion to join defendants’

4
motion (#12) to extend time to respond to plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction.
5
6

Defendant Don E. Brady asks this Court to grant them an extension of time, up to and including,

7

May 4, 2012, in which to file their response to the motion for preliminary injunction. Id. Based

8

on the Court’s findings in its April 13, 2012 Order, good cause exists to grant defendant Don E.

9

Brady’s request for extension.

10
Accordingly, and for good cause shown,
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

IT IS ORDERED that defendant Don E. Brady’s Response to Plaintiff’s
Motion For Preliminary Injunction and Other Relief (#4) is due on or before May 4, 2012.

DATED this 17th day of April, 2012.
DATED this ______ day of April, 2012.

________________________________

________________________________
Gloria M. Navarro
CAM FERENBACH
United States District Judge
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-2-