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)

Download PDF
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?