Rama Sou, et al. vs Michael Bash, et al.
Filing
78
ORDER Granting 77 Stipulation. Defendants answers due 5/4/2016. Signed by Judge Andrew P. Gordon on 4/4/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - TR)
Case 2:15-cv-00698-APG-VCF Document 77 Filed 04/02/16 Page 1 of 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
EDWARD W. SUH
CA Bar No. 265356
Admitted Pro Hac Vice
LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL K. SUH & ASSOCIATES
3810 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1212
Los Angeles, Ca 90010
Telephone:
(213) 385-7347
Facsimile:
(213) 383-3323
Email: Edward@suhnassoclaw.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
RICHARD H. LEE
CA Bar No. 223553
Admitted Pro Hac Vice
SALISIAN | LEE LLP
550 South Hope Street, Suite 750
Los Angeles, California 90071-2627
Telephone:
(213) 622-9100
Facsimile:
(800) 622-9145
Email: richard.lee@salisianlee.com
Attorneys for Defendants
13
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
14
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
15
16
RAMA SOU; TAI BUI; and SCOTT
ZIMMERMAN,
17
Plaintiffs,
18
vs.
19
20
21
22
23
Case No.: 2:15-cv-00698-APG-VCF
STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME FOR
DEFENDANTS TO RESPOND TO SECOND
AMENDED COMPLAINT (First Request)
[LR 6-1, 6-2]
MICHAEL BASH; JEREMY BASH;
BERKLEY ENTERPRISES, INC.;
PEPPERDINE ENTERPRISES, INC.;
NINETY-FIVE FORT APACHE COMPLEX,
LLC; ROYAL VIEW, LLC; and DOES 1
through 20, inclusive,
ORDER
Defendants.
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION TO EXTEND DEFENDANTS’ TIME TO RESPOND TO SECOND
AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:15-cv-00698-APG-VCF Document 77 Filed 04/02/16 Page 2 of 5
TO THE HONORABLE COURT, ALL PARTIES, AND THEIR COUNSEL OF
1
2
RECORD:
Plaintiffs Rama Sou, Tai Bui, and Scott Zimmerman (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), on the
3
4
one hand, and defendants Michael Bash, Jeremy Bash, Berkley Enterprises, Inc., Pepperdine
5
Enterprises, Inc., Ninety-Five Fort Apache Complex, LLC, and Royal View, LLC (collectively,
6
“Defendants”), on the other hand, by and through their respective counsel, hereby stipulate as
7
follows:
WHEREAS, on February 24, 2016, a hearing was held before the Honorable Andrew
8
9
Gordon regarding Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint and
10
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend Complaint. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend Complaint was denied
11
without prejudice, and Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss was granted with leave to amend.
12
Plaintiffs were granted 21 days’ leave to file a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”), which was
13
filed on March 16, 2016. Defendants’ response to Plaintiffs’ SAC is due on April 4, 2016.
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs’ and Defendants’ respective counsel agreed to an approximate
14
15
thirty-day extension for Defendants to respond to the SAC.
16
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties,
17
through their respective counsel of record, that good cause exists and it is in the best interests of
18
all parties to extend Defendants’ deadline to file and serve any response to the SAC to May 4,
19
2016.
20
21
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
STIPULATION TO EXTEND DEFENDANTS’ TIME TO RESPOND TO SECOND
AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:15-cv-00698-APG-VCF Document 77 Filed 04/02/16 Page 3 of 5
1
Dated:
April 1, 2016
2
LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL K. SUH &
ASSOCIATES
3
By: ___/s/ Edward W. Suh____________
Edward W. Suh
CA Bar No. 265356
Admitted Pro Hac Vice
4
5
6
Gordon R. Goolsby
NV Bar No. 11578
GOOLSBY LAW, LTD.
7
8
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Rama Sou, Tai Bui, and Scott Zimmerman
9
10
Dated:
April 1, 2016
SALISIAN | LEE LLP
11
12
By: ___/s/ Richard H. Lee_____________
Richard H. Lee
CA Bar No. 223553
Admitted Pro Hac Vice
13
14
Michael B. Lee
NV Bar No. 10122
MICHAEL B. LEE, P.C.
15
16
Attorneys for Defendants
Michael Bash, Jeremy Bash, Berkley Enterprises,
Inc., Pepperdine Enterprises, Inc., Ninety-Five Fort
Apache Complex, LLC, and Royal View, LLC
17
18
19
20
ORDER
21
IT IS SO ORDERED.
22
Dated: April 4, 2016.
23
______________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
24
25
26
27
28
2
STIPULATION TO EXTEND DEFENDANTS’ TIME TO RESPOND TO SECOND
AMENDED COMPLAINT
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?