Cybergun S.A. et al v. Crosman Corporation

Filing 14

ORDER Granting 13 Plaintiff's Motion to Extend Time to Respond to 1 Complaint. Crosman Corporation answer due 12/16/2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach on 11/14/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AC)

Case 2:13-cv-01841-GMN-VCF Document 13 Filed 11/13/13 Page 1 of 2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

J. Stephen Peek, Esq.
Nevada Bar No. 1758
Robert J. Cassity, Esq.
Nevada Bar No. 9779
HOLLAND & HART LLP
9555 Hillwood Drive, 2nd Floor
Las Vegas, Nevada 89134
702-669-4600
702-669-4650 – fax
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

11

Brett L. Foster, Esq. (pro hac vice pending)
Richard T. Jackson, Esq. (pro hac vice pending)
Holland & Hart LLP
222 S. Main Street, Suite 2200
Salt Lake City, Utah 84101
801-799-5800
801-799-5700 – fax
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

12

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

8
9

HOLLAND & HART LLP

9555 Hillwood Drive, 2nd Floor
Las Vegas, Nevada 89134

10

13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

15 CYBERGUN S.A., a French Corporation, and
FN HERSTAL, S.A., a Belgian Corporation,
16
Plaintiffs,
17
v.
18
CROSMAN CORPORATION, a Delaware
19 Corporation,
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

CASE NO. 2:13-cv-01841-GMN-VCF
UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME FOR
DEFENDANT TO RESPOND TO
COMPLAINT
(First Request)

Defendant.
Pursuant to LR 6-1 and LR 6-2, Plaintiffs Cybergun S.A. and FN Herstal, S.A., by and
through their undersigned counsel, move the Court on an unopposed basis for an extension of time
for Defendant to respond to the Complaint. The current deadline for Defendant to file in response
to the Complaint is November 13, 2014. Plaintiffs request that the Court grant Defendant an
additional 33 days, or until December 16, 2013, to file in response to the Complaint. There have
been no previous extensions granted by the Court. The reason supporting this request is that the
parties are engaged in settlement discussions and Plaintiffs represent that there is a reasonable

28
Page 1 of 2
6511913_1

Case 2:13-cv-01841-GMN-VCF Document 13 Filed 11/13/13 Page 2 of 2

1

opportunity to amicably resolve this case. Plaintiffs, rather than Defendant, are filing this motion

2

because Defendant has not yet retained local counsel and Plaintiffs have agreed to file this motion

3

for the benefit of Defendant. Plaintiffs have no objection to the requested extension for Defendant

4

to respond to the Complaint.

5

Accordingly, Plaintiffs make this unopposed request that the Court extend the deadline for

6

Defendant to answer for thirty-three (33) days, such that Defendant’s response to the Complaint

7

will be due on or before December 16, 2013.

8

DATED November 13, 2013.

9

/s/ Robert J. Cassity
______________________________
J. Stephen Peek, Esq.
Robert J. Cassity, Esq.
HOLLAND & HART LLP
9555 Hillwood Drive, 2nd Floor
Las Vegas, Nevada 89134

10
11
HOLLAND & HART LLP

9555 Hillwood Drive, 2nd Floor
Las Vegas, Nevada 89134

12
13

15

Brett L. Foster, Esq. (pro hac vice pending)
Richard T. Jackson, Esq. (pro hac vice pending)
Holland & Hart LLP
222 S. Main Street, Suite 2200
Salt Lake City, Utah 84101

16

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

14

17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED:

19
20
21

______________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Magistrate

22

11-14-2013
Dated: __________________________

23
24
25
26
27
28
Page 2 of 2
6511913_1