Blackwelder v. Thornton et al
ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that the following discovery plan and scheduling order deadlines shall apply: Discovery due by 7/9/2018. Motions due by 8/8/2018. Proposed Joint Pretrial Order due by 9/7/2018. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Aecos shall have until 6 /1/18 to retain counsel who shall make an appearance in this case in accordance with the requirements of the Local Rules of practice unless it has executed a settlement agreement and applied to the New Jersey Court in which the receivership is pending for approval. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 4/16/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
Case No. 2:15-cv-02373-JAD-PAL
CHARLES THORNTON, et al.,
The court conducted a status hearing on April 10, 2018 regarding the parties’ possible
settlement of this matter. Steven Parsons appeared on behalf of plaintiff, pro se defendant Brian
Howells appeared telephonically, and Nicholas Wieczorek appeared on behalf of the remaining
Plaintiffs’ counsel received financial information from Mr. Howells and indicates it will
take approximately 60 days to assess whether plaintiff intends to proceed with claims against
Howells. Plaintiff and Thornton have been in the process of finalizing their settlement but do not
yet have an executed agreement. Plaintiff and the New Jersey Receiver for Aecos believe they
have an agreement in principal, but the agreement is dependent on the terms of the
Blackwelder/Thornton settlement agreement. The Receiver will need to see the final executed
agreement before settling with the plaintiff, and will need to seek approval of any settlement
reached between plaintiff and Aecos from the New Jersey court in which the receivership action
is pending. Mr. Howell may oppose the settlement in New Jersey if it involves transferring
intellectual property rights to plaintiff.
This case has languished on the court’s docket for far too long. The court will enter a final
discovery plan and scheduling order giving the parties 90 days from the hearing to complete any
remaining discovery and set other deadlines consistent with LR 26-1. No further extensions will
be allowed. Any request for further extension should be filed as a motion/objection addressed to
the district judge to overrule this court’s ruling that no further extension will be granted.
The court has addressed the fact that Aecos is a corporation but is not represented by
counsel since December 1, 2017 on several occasions. The parties have urged the court not to
recommend case dispositive sanctions to the district judge because it may prevent the parties from
reaching a settlement. Dispositive sanctions will be recommended if plaintiff and Aecos have
not executed a signed agreement and applied to the New Jersey court for approval by June
1, 2018. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the following discovery plan and scheduling order deadlines shall
1. Deadline to complete discovery: July 9, 2018.
2. Last date to file dispositive motions: August 8, 2018.
3. Last date to file joint pretrial order: September 7, 2018. In the event dispositive
motions are filed, the date for filing the joint pretrial order shall be suspended until 30
days after a decision of the dispositive motions.
4. The disclosures required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3), and any objections thereto, shall
be included in the pretrial order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no further extensions will be allowed, and any request
for further extension shall be filed as a motion or objection addressed to the district judge to
overrule this order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Aecos shall have until June 1, 2018 to retain counsel who
shall make an appearance in this case in accordance with the requirements of the Local Rules of
practice unless it has executed a settlement agreement and applied to the New Jersey Court in
which the receivership is pending for approval.
DATED this 16th day of April, 2018.
PEGGY A. LEEN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?