Bancorp International Group et al v. Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. et al

Filing 33

ORDER - The # 30 Stipulation to extend time for the DTCC Defendants to respond to Plaintiff's complaint is DENIED. The court, however, grants the DTCC Defendants an additional two weeks within which to respond to the Plaintiff's complaint to and including August 29, 2013. There shall be no further extensions. Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb on 8/8/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

Bancorp International Group et al v. Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. et al

Doc. 33

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

BANCORP INTERNATIONAL GROUP, et al., )
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
FINANCIAL INDUSTRY REGULATORY
)
AUTHORITY, INC., et al.,
)
)
Defendants
)
________________________________________)

3:13-cv-00170-RCJ-WGC
MINUTES OF THE COURT
August 8, 2013

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

KATIE LYNN OGDEN REPORTER: NONE APPEARING

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF(S): NONE APPEARING
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT(S): NONE APPEARING
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS:
Before the court is the stipulation of the parties to extend the time within which The
Depository Trust Company, The Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation, National Securities
Clearing Corporation, and Fixed Income Clearing Corporation (“DTCC Defendants”) have to answer
or otherwise respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint. (Doc. # 30.) This is the second request for an
extension of time. On July 15, 2013, this court granted the parties’ stipulation for extension of time
for the DTCC Defendants to respond to Plaintiff’s complaint. (Doc. # 29.) Defendants stated at that
time the purpose of the extension “is to provide DTCC Defendants additional time to evaluate
Plaintiff’s claims against them.” (Doc. # 27.)
The basis stated by the parties for the current stipulation presents different grounds from
before, i.e., that the resolution of the motion to dismiss (Doc. # 8) filed by Defendant Financial
Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”) presents arguments similar to those which the DTCC
Defendants might raise. (Doc. #30 at 2.) Therefore, the DTCC Defendants wish to await ruling on
the FINRA motion until having to answer to plead with regard to Plaintiff’s complaint. However,
the stated rationale for the current stipulation suggests that it would be more appropriate for the
DTCC Defendants to submit their motion to dismiss by the August 15, 2013 deadline as opposed
to deferring the motion indefinitely. Also, if the DTCC Defendants wait until the FINRA motion
is resolved, a possible motion filed at that point in the litigation might unduly prolong the case.

Dockets.Justia.com

MINUTES OF THE COURT
3:13-cv-00170-RCJ-WGC
Date: August 8, 2013
Page 2
Accordingly, the stipulation to extend time for the DTCC Defendants to respond to Plaintiff’s
complaint is DENIED. The court, however, grants the DTCC Defendants an additional two weeks
within which to respond to the Plaintiff’s complaint to and including August 29, 2013. There shall
be no further extensions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
LANCE S. WILSON, CLERK

By:

/s/
Deputy Clerk