Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors v. Marini et al

Filing 241

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS - Motion Hearing held on 10/10/2013 before Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb. Crtrm Administrator: Katie Lynn Ogden; Pla Counsel: Alan J. Stomel (Telephonically); Def Counsel: Cynthia Alexander, Kaaran Thomas, Timothy Rowe, David Schwartz, Lisa Chapman (Telephonically); FTR #: 10:33:54 a.m. - 11:20:43 a.m.; Time of Hearing: 10:30 a.m.; Courtroom: 2. The court holds today's hearing to address Plaintiff's 220 Motion for Stay. The court advises the parties that it will treat Plaintiffs Motion for Stay as a request for stay of discovery; therefore, for the purpose of this hearing, Plaintiffs Motion for Stay will be addressed in the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge. The court hears from counsel with regard to their respective positions concerning Plaintiffs motion for stay. Plaintiffs 220 Emergency Motion for Stay is DENIED. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KO)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
OFFICIAL COMMITTEE OF
UNSECURED CREDITORS,

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
vs.
)
)
GIACOMO MARINI, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________ )

3:13-cv-00010-RCJ-WGC
MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS
October 10, 2013

PRESENT: THE HONORABLE WILLIAM G. COBB, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DEPUTY CLERK:

Katie Lynn Ogden

REPORTER:

FTR

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF(S): Alan J. Stomel (Telephonically)
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS: Cynthia Alexander, Kaaran Thomas, Timothy Rowe,
David Schwartz, Lisa Chapman (Telephonically)
MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS: Status Conference
10:33 a.m. Court convenes.
The court holds today’s hearing to discuss various matters relating to Plaintiff’s
Emergency Motion for Stay (Doc. # 220). Oppositions to Plaintiff’s motion were filed on behalf
of the Defendants including: Big Sky Venture Capital III, LLC and Big Sky Venture Capital IV,
LLC, Doc. # 229; Noventi Ventures II, LP, Doc. #231; and the remaining individual defendants,
Doc. # 236.
The court begins today’s hearing GRANTING Defendant Noventi Ventures II, LP,
Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Opposition to Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for Stay
(Doc. # 233) and DENYING the individual Defendants’ Request for Judicial Notice in Support
of Opposition to Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for Stay (Doc. # 237).
The Court makes the observation that the characterization of Plaintiff’s Emergency
Motion for Stay appears to request a stay of the case, which is typically within the purview of
Chief Judge Jones to address and consider. However, the context of the motion appears to
suggests that Plaintiff’s motion is either a request in stay of discovery or a modification of the
scheduling order. The court advises the parties that it will treat Plaintiff’s Motion for Stay as a
request for stay of discovery; however, Chief Judge Jones may also want to address the matter of

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS
3:13-cv-00010-RCJ-WGC
Date: October 10, 2013
Page 2
a stay in this case. Nevertheless, for the purpose of this hearing, Plaintiff’s Motion for Stay
(Doc. # 220) will be addressed today in the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge.
The court hears from counsel with regard to their respective positions concerning
Plaintiff’s motion for stay.
After hearing from counsel, the Court does not find Plaintiff’s grounds for its Motion for
Stay reasonable. Assuming Plaintiff is able to accomplish the following in ninety (90) days is
unrealistic: (1) secure a modification to the existing fee agreement, which would require approval
from the bankruptcy court; (2) litigate Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgement in the
bankruptcy court against Defendant Mosebar with a favorable ruling; (3) file a Rule 54(b) motion
for certification because, in the court’s perspective, the Motion for Summary Judgment is not a
final judgment; (4) assume Mr. Mosebar will not appeal a final judgment if not in his favor; (5)
execute the final judgement; and finally (6) presuming Plaintiff is able to obtain financial assets
sufficient enough to retain an expert, he or she who would have to be fully briefed regarding this
matter.
The court notes that Plaintiff has known the deadline for disclosure of the expert reports
since September 19, 2013, when the court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff’s Motion
for Relief from Scheduling Order (Doc. # 213) in Court Order, Doc. # 216.
In conclusion, Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for Stay (Doc. # 220) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
11:20 a.m. Court adjourns.
LANCE S. WILSON, CLERK
By:

/s/
Katie Lynn Ogden, Deputy Clerk