MST Mangagement LLC et al v. Chicago Doughnut Franchise Company, LLC et al

Filing 23

ORDER Granting 21 Stipulation to Extend Time re 1 Complaint (First Request). Bryan Morelle, Chicago Doughnut Franchise Company, LLC, Diversified Franchise Group, Inc, Marc Freeman, Mark Publicover, Montiedell "Monty" Maple, Ric McKown, and Steven Moulton answer due 6/7/2021. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Albregts on 4/1/2021. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MR)

Download PDF
Case 2:21-cv-00360-JAD-DJA Document 23 Filed 04/01/21 Page 1 of 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Laura R. Jacobsen, Esq. (NV Bar No. 13699) McDONALD CARANO LLP 100 W. Liberty Street, Tenth Floor Reno, Nevada 89501 Telephone: 775-788-2000 Facsimile: 775-788-2020 ljacobsen@mcdonaldcarano.com Jason C. McKenney, Esq. (TX Bar No. 24070245) Kim Kearns, Esq. (TX Bar No. 24071217) Mavish Bana, Esq. (TX Bar No. 24096653) Admitted Pro Hac Vice MAYER LLP 750 N. Saint Paul Street, Suite 700 Dallas, Texas 75201 Telephone: 214-379-6288 Facsimile: 214-379-6369 jmckenney@mayerllp.com kkearns@mayerllp.com mbana@mayerllp.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 14 FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA 15 16 MST MANAGEMENT LLC; DENDARY’S DONUTS, LLC; LYON & GREYBEAR LENDING, LLC; and SKYELEE, LLC, Plaintiffs, 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 vs. CHICAGO DOUGHNUT FRANCHISE COMPANY, LLC; DIVERSIFIED FRANCHISE GROUP, INC., BRIAN PAPPAS; JEFFREY PAPPAS; JACQUELINE BALL; MARK PUBLICOVER; MONTIEDELL “MONTY” MAPLE; BRYAN MORELLE; MARC FREEMAN; RIC McKOWN; and STEVEN MOULTON, Case No. 2:21-cv-00360-JAD-DJA STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND TIME FOR CERTAIN DEFENDANTS TO RESPOND TO THE CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT (FIRST REQUEST) Defendants. 25 Plaintiffs MST Management LLC, Dendary’s Donuts, LLC, Lyon & Greybear Lending, 26 LLC and Skyelee, LLC (“Plaintiffs”) by and through their undersigned counsel, and Defendants 27 Mark Publicover, Steven Moulton, Chicago Doughnut Franchise Company, LLC, Diversified 28 Franchise Group, Inc., Marc Freeman, Montiedell “Monty” Maple, Bryan Morelle, and Ric Case 2:21-cv-00360-JAD-DJA Document 23 Filed 04/01/21 Page 2 of 2 1 McKown (collectively referred to as “Defendants”), by and through their undersigned counsel for 2 purposes of this stipulation, stipulate to extend the deadline for Defendants to answer or otherwise 3 respond to the Class Action Complaint (ECF No. 1) to and including May 3, 2021. The parties 4 further stipulate that Plaintiffs deadline to respond to any of the Defendants’ response to the Class 5 Action Complaint be extended 35 days after Defendants’ answer or response up to and including 6 June 7, 2021. 7 This is the parties’ first request to extend this deadline as the Defendants require additional 8 time to review the claims and investigate the facts. The undersigned hereby certify that this request 9 is not made for the purpose of delay. 10 Dated: March _31__, 2021 Dated: March _31__, 2021 11 McDONALD CARANO LLP CONNOR KUDLAC LEE PLLC By: /s/ Laura R. Jacobsen Laura R. Jacobsen, Esq. (NV Bar No. 13699) 100 W. Liberty Street, 10th Floor Reno, Nevada 89501 ljacobsen@mcdonaldcarano.com By: /s/ Cabrach Connor Cabrach Connor (TX Bar No.24036390) Pro Hac Vice Application Forthcoming 609 Castle Ridge Road, Suite 450 Austin, Texas 78746 cab@connorkudlaclee.com 12 13 14 15 20 MAYER LLP Jason C. McKenney, Esq. (TX Bar No.24070245) Kim Kearns, Esq. (TX Bar No. 24071217) Mavish Bana, Esq. (TX Bar No. 24096653) 750 N. Saint Paul Street, Suite 700 Dallas, Texas 75201 jmckenney@mayerllp.com kkearns@mayerllp.com mbana@mayerllp.com 21 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 16 17 18 19 Attorney for Defendants CHICAGO DOUGHNUT FRANCHISE COMPANY, LLC, DIVERSIFIED FRANCHISE GROUP, INC., MARK PUBLICOVER, MONTIEDELL “MONTY” MAPLE, BRYAN MORELLE, MARC FREEMAN, RIC McKOWN and STEVEN MOULTON 22 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 25 26 27 28 U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE DANIEL J. ALBREGTS U.S. MAGISTRATEMAGISTRATE JUDGE UNITED STATES COURT JUDGE DATED: April 1, 2021

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?