Rand v. Patsalos-Fox et al

Filing 14

ORDER Granting 13 Stipulation to Extend Time to Respond to First Amended Complaint. Signed by Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr on 9/10/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - TR)

Case 2:15-cv-01510-RFB-GWF Document 13 Filed 09/09/15 Page 1 of 5

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

JEFFREY A. SMITH, ESQ.
Colorado Bar No. 31038
Motion for Permission to Practice
Pro Hac Vice and Designation of
Local Counsel Pursuant to
LR IA 10-2 Pending
SMITH BYERS LLC
5480 Valmont Rd., Suite #200
Boulder, Colorado 80301
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
E-Mail:
[e-mail]
ADAM H. SPRINGEL, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 7187
MICHAEL A. ARATA, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 11902
SPRINGEL & FINK LLP
10655 Park Run Drive, Suite 275
Las Vegas, Nevada 89144
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
E-Mail:
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendant
INFONOW CORPORATION dba
CHANNELINSIGHT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
NAHUM RAND,
Case No.: 2:15-cv-01510-RFB-GWF
Plaintiff,
vs.

STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME FOR
DEFENDANTS MICHAEL PATSALOSFOX, MICHAEL PATTERSON AND
VEDANTA CAPITAL, LP TO RESPOND
TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED
COMPLAINT [1-1]

MICHAEL PATSALOS-FOX; PAUL
BARTLETT; MICHAEL PATTERSON; TIM
CONNOR; RHO VENTURES; VEDANTA
CAPITAL LP; SEQUEL VENTURE
PARTNERS; INFONOW CORPORATION dba (Second Request)
CHANNELINSIGHT; DOES I through X,
inclusive; and ROE CORPORATIONS I
through X, inclusive,
Defendants.

28

{N0150173;1}

-1-

Case 2:15-cv-01510-RFB-GWF Document 13 Filed 09/09/15 Page 2 of 5

1

Defendant INFONOW CORPORATION dba CHANNELINSIGHT (“InfoNow”) and

2

Plaintiff NAHUM RAND, by and through their counsel of records, hereby stipulate to allow

3

Defendants Michael Patsalos-Fox, Michael Patterson and Vedanta Capital, LP (collectively,

4

“Defendants”) an extension of time to file their responses to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint

5

[Dkt. 1-1]. In furtherance of the Stipulation, Defendants state as follows:

6

1.

7

25, 2015.

8

2.

9
10

Defendants’ response to the First Amended Complaint is due on Tuesday, August

On August 20, 2015, Defendants filed their First Stipulated Extension of Time to

Respond to the First Amended Compliant [Dkt. 7] (“First Extension”), which the Court approved
on August 24, 2015 [Dkt. 9].
3.

11

One of the main reasons for the First Extension was to allow the parties to address

12

personal jurisdiction issues and avoid burdening the Court and the parties with unnecessary

13

motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
4.

14

To resolve the personal jurisdiction issue, the parties agreed to transfer this case to

15

the District of Colorado, where Defendant would be subject to personal jurisdiction. On August

16

31, 2015, the parties filed their Joint Stipulation and Order to Transfer Case to the District of

17

Colorado Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404 [Dkt. 10] (“Joint Stipulation to Transfer Venue to

18

Colorado”).

19

5.

The Court has not yet taken action on the Joint Stipulation to Transfer Venue to

20

Colorado.

The parties, therefore, have stipulated to a second extension of time to allow

21

Defendants fourteen days following the Court’s action on the Joint Stipulation to Transfer Venue

22

to Colorado to respond to the First Amended Complaint.

23

6.

Plaintiff’s counsel, Erik W. Fox, has stipulated to the requested extension of time.

24

7.

This is the second extension of time sought by Defendants.

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///

{N0150173;1}

-2-

Case 2:15-cv-01510-RFB-GWF Document 13 Filed 09/09/15 Page 3 of 5

8.

1

The requested extension will not prejudice the Court since the extension will

2

avoid requiring Defendants to file unnecessary motions to dismiss for lack of personal

3

jurisdiction. On the other hand, Defendants would be severely prejudiced if required to spend

4

thousands of dollars on motions that are moot in light of the Joint Stipulation to Transfer Venue

5

to Colorado. Plaintiff also would be prejudiced in having to spend equal amounts of money and

6

time in responding to moot motions.1

7

///

8

///

9

///

10

///

11

///

12

///

13

///

14

///

15

///

16

///

17

///

18

///

19

///

20

///

21

///

22

///

23

///

24

///

25

///

26
27
28

1

Defendants also have Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss and they would suffer additional
prejudice if they have to file those motions prior to the Court acting on the Joint Stipulation to Transfer
Venue to Colorado because, if the Court were to deny the requested transfer, Defendants would be in a
situation where they could be deemed to have waived a motion to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(2).

{N0150173;1}

-3-

Case 2:15-cv-01510-RFB-GWF Document 13 Filed 09/09/15 Page 4 of 5

1

WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, Defendants respectfully request that the Court

2

accept this Stipulation and extend the time for Defendants to respond to the First Amended

3

Complaint to fourteen (14) days after the Court takes action on the Joint Stipulation to Transfer

4

Venue to Colorado.

5

DATED this 9th day of September, 2015.

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

/s/ Jeffrey A. Smith
JEFFREY A. SMITH, ESQ.
Colorado Bar No. 31038
Motion for Permission to
Practice
Pro Hac Vice and Designation of
Local Counsel Pursuant to
LR IA 10-2 Pending
SMITH BYERS LLC
5480 Valmont Rd., Suite #200
Boulder, Colorado 80301
Telephone: [phone]
E-Mail: [e-mail]
Attorney for Defendant
INFONOW CORPORATION dba
CHANNELINSIGHT

/s/ Adam H. Springel
ADAM H. SPRINGEL, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 7187
MICHAEL A. ARATA, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 11902
SPRINGEL & FINK LLP
10655 Park Run Drive, Ste. 275
Las Vegas, Nevada 89144
Telephone: [phone]
E-Mail: [e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendant INFONOW
CORPORATION dba
CHANNELINSIGHT

/s/ Erik W. Fox
ERIK W. FOX, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 8804
MARQUIS AURBACH
COFFING
10001 Park Run Drive
Las Vegas, NV 89145
Telephone: [phone]
E-Mail: [e-mail]
Attorney for Plaintiff

24

IT IS SO ORDERED.
September 10, 2015
Dated:__________________

25
26

____________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
GEORGE FOLEY, JR.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
United States Magistrate Judge

27
28

{N0150173;1}

-4-

Case 2:15-cv-01510-RFB-GWF Document 13 Filed 09/09/15 Page 5 of 5

1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2

Pursuant to Local Rule 5 of this Court, I certify that I am an employee of Springel & Fink

3

LLP and that on this 9th day of September, 2015, I caused a correct copy of the foregoing

4

STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME FOR DEFENDANTS MICHAEL PATSALOS-FOX,

5

MICHAEL PATTERSON AND VEDANTA CAPITAL, LP TO RESPOND TO

6

PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT [1-1] (Second Request) to be served via

7

CM/ECF to:

8
9
10
11
12

Erik W. Fox, Esq.
[e-mail]
MARQUIS AURBACH COFFING
10001 Park Run Drive
Las Vegas, NV 89145
Telephone [phone]
Facsimile [phone]
Attorney for Plaintiff

13

/s/ Erin L. Wood
An employee of Springel & Fink LLP

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

{N0150173;1}

-5-