Chamaria et al v. Diab et al

Filing 31

ORDER Granting 30 Stipulation to Extend Time re 20 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. ( Responses due by 8/30/2017.) Signed by Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey on 8/23/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

Case 2:17-cv-02023-JAD-CWH Document 30 Filed 08/22/17 Page 1 of 3

1
2
3
4
5

ALEXIS BROWN LAW, CHTD.
Alexis L. Brown (No. 12338)
725 S. 8th St., Suite 200
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
Attorney for Plaintiffs
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

7
8
9
10
11

VISHAL CHAMARIA, an individual;
VIVEK CHAMARIA, an individual; PUJA
CHAMARIA, an individual; GAURI
CHAMARIA, an individual; P & V, LLC, a
California limited liability company; CHIP
SHOP, LLC, a California limited liability
company,

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

ORDER

Plaintiffs,

12
13

Case No.: 2:17-CV-02023-JAD-CWH

vs.
TONY M. DIAB, an individual; SHOOK,
HARDY & BACON, L.L.P., a Missouri
limited liability partnership; MATTHEW
GREGORY JONES, an individual; G & M
MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., a
California corporation, dba JONES REAL
ESTATE; DOES I through X, individuals;
and ROE BUSINESS ENTITIES I through X,
inclusive,
Defendants.
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO MOTION TO
DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION (DKT. 20)
(First Request)

22

Plaintiffs VISHAL CHAMARIA, VIVEK CHAMARIA, PUJA CHARMARIA, GAURI

23

CHAMARIA, P & V, LLC, and CHIP SHOP, LLC (collectively, the “Plaintiffs”), by and through

24

their attorney of record ALEXIS L. BROWN, ESQ. of the law office of ALEXIS BROWN LAW,

25

CHTD., and Defendants MATTHEW GREGORY JONES and G & M MANAGEMENT

26

SERVICES, INC., by and through their attorney of record BRADLEY J. HOFLAND, ESQ. of

27

the law office HOFLAND & TOMSHECK, hereby enter into this Stipulation to Extend Time to

28
1

Case 2:17-cv-02023-JAD-CWH Document 30 Filed 08/22/17 Page 2 of 3

1

Respond to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction (Dkt. 20) (First Request) pursuant

2

to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 and L.R. IA 6-1 as follows:

3

WHEREAS on July 31, 2017, Mr. Diab filed Defendant Tony M. Diab’s Notice of Motion

4

and Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction; Memorandum of Points and Authorities

5

Thereon (the “Diab Motion to Dismiss”) (Dkt. 10).

6

WHEREAS on August 8, 2017, Defendants Matthew Gregory Jones and G & M

7

Management Services, Inc. (the “Jones Defendants”) filed a Notice of Motion and Motion to

8

Dismiss Complaint Against Defendants Matthew Gregory Jones and G & M Management

9

Services, Inc. for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction (the “Jones Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss”) (Dkt.

10

20).

11
12

WHEREAS Plaintiffs’ response to the Jones Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 20) is
currently due August 22, 2017.

13

WHEREAS Plaintiffs assert that jurisdiction over Mr. Diab and the Jones Defendants is

14

intertwined and, as such, Plaintiffs wish to collectively address the jurisdictional arguments raised

15

in both the Diab Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 10) and Jones Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 20).

16

WHEREAS, because of the foregoing, Plaintiffs and Mr. Diab agreed to extend the

17

deadline to respond to the Diab Motion to Dismiss to August 22, 2017, which was granted by the

18

Court.

19

Lack of Jurisdiction (Dkt. 28).

See Order Granting [27] Stipulation to Extend Time re [10] MOTION to Dismiss for

20

WHEREAS Plaintiffs and Diab agreed to the first extension of time to respond to the Diab

21

Motion to Dismiss to August 22, 2017, the California Automobile Case referred to in Plaintiffs’

22

Verified Complaint reinstated and has required Mr. Diab’s and Plaintiffs’ attention.

23
24

WHEREAS as part of the discussions regarding the California Automobile Case, Mr. Diab
and Plaintiffs have also been engaging in settlement discussions regarding this case.

25

WHEREAS due to the foregoing, Mr. Diab offered to allow Plaintiffs a second requested

26

extension until August 30, 2017 to respond to the Diab Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 10). See

27

Stipulation and Order to Extend Time to Respond to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal

28

Jurisdiction (Dkt. 29).
2

Case 2:17-cv-02023-JAD-CWH Document 30 Filed 08/22/17 Page 3 of 3

1

WHEREAS the Jones Defendants have similarly agreed to accommodate additional time

2

for the Plaintiffs’ to respond to the Jones Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss to August 30, 2017 (Dkt.

3

20).

4

Based on the foregoing,

5

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED that good cause exists to allow Plaintiffs until August 30,

6
7

2017 to respond to the Jones Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 20).
DATED this 22nd day of August, 2017.

8

ALEXIS BROWN LAW, CHTD.

9
10

/s/ Alexis L. Brown
By: _________________________________
Alexis L. Brown (No. 12338)

11

Attorney for Plaintiffs

12

DATED this 22nd day of August, 2017.

13

HOFLAND & TOMSHECK

14

/s/ Bradley J. Hofland
By: _________________________________
Bradley J. Hofland (No. 6343)

15
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
18
19
20
21

U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
DATED:

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

8/23/2017