Menos v. Taylor et al

Filing 55

ORDER granting ECF No. 54 Stipulation Regarding Defendants' Response to ECF Nos. 49 Amended Complaint and 52 Emergency Motion to Stay Case. Defendants do not need to respond to the Amended Complaint until the stay issue is reso lved. Plaintiff's response to the Emergency Motion to Stay Civil Case ("Stay Motion") ECF No. 52 is held in abeyance until Judge Kobayashi makes a determination on Defendants' motions to stay the Hawaii Actions. Parties will promptly notify the Court with any decisions and deadlines entered in the Hawaii Actions. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 2/5/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13
14

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

15

HANS MENOS, derivatively on behalf of
ECO SCIENCE SOLUTIONS, INC.,

16

Plaintiff,

17

STIPULATION AND ORDER
REGARDING DEFENDANTS’
RESPONSE TO AMENDED
COMPLAINT AND PLAINTIFF’S
RESPONSE TO THE EMERGENCY
MOTION TO STAY CIVIL CASE

v.

18

Case No. 3:17-CV-00662-LRH-CBC

JEFFERY L. TAYLOR, DON L.
TAYLOR, L. JOHN LEWIS, S.
RANDALL OVESON, and GANNON
GIGUIERE,

19

(First Request)

20
21
22
23

Defendants,
and
ECO SCIENCE SOLUTIONS, INC.,
Nominal Defendant.

24
25
26
27
28
1

STIPULATION REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO AMENDED
COMPLAINT AND PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO THE EMERGENCY MOTION TO
STAY CIVIL CASE

1
2

Pursuant to LR IA 6-1, LR IA 6-2, LR 7-1, and Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), Plaintiff Hans
3

Menos (“Plaintiff”), by and through his counsel the law firms of Leverty & Associates Law Chtd.

4
Ltd. and The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. and Defendants Jeffery L. Taylor, Don L. Taylor, L. John
5
6
7

Lewis, S. Randall Oveson and Gannon Giguiere (collectively, “Individual Defendants”) and
Nominal Defendant Eco Science Solutions, Inc. (“Nominal Defendant” and with Individual
Defendants, “Defendants”), by and through their counsel, the law firm of Greenberg Traurig, LLP,

8
hereby stipulate and agree that due to the criminal indictment against Defendant Gannon Giguiere,
9

U.S.A. v. Giguiere, et al., Case No. 18-CR-3071-WQH (S.D.Cal.) (the “Criminal Indictment”):

10
11

(1) The February 11, 2019 deadline for Defendants’ response to the Verified First
Amended Shareholder Derivative Complaint (“Amended Complaint”) (Dkt. No. 49) is vacated

12
and Defendants do not need to respond to the Amended Complaint until the stay issue is resolved
13
in the related derivative actions, Bell v. Taylor, et al., Case No. 17-cv-00530 (D. Hawaii) and
14

D’Annunzio v. Taylor, et al., Case No. 18-cv-00016 (D. Hawaii) (the “Hawaii Actions”)1; and

15
16
17

(2) Plaintiff’s response to the Emergency Motion to Stay Civil Case (“Stay Motion”) (Dkt.
No. 52) is held in abeyance until Judge Kobayashi makes a determination on Defendants’ motions
to stay the Hawaii Actions. If Judge Kobayashi denies Defendants’ motions to stay in the Hawaii

18
Actions, then Defendants shall withdraw their Stay Motion in this action and stipulate to a deadline
19

for Defendants’ response to the Amended Complaint. If Judge Kobayashi grants Defendants’

20
motions to stay in the Hawaii Actions, then the Parties will enter into stay with similar terms as
21
the stay entered in the Hawaii Actions.
22
The Parties will promptly notify the Court with any decisions and deadlines entered in the
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

On January 29, 2019, Defendants filed similar motions to stay in the Hawaii Actions. On January
30, 2019, Judge Leslie E. Kobayashi affirmed that the hearing on the motions to stay will proceed
on March 15, 2019, but granted Defendants’ ex parte application to extend their deadline to
respond to the Hawaii Complaint until after the stay issue was resolved. Judge Kobayashi stated
that if the stay motions are granted, then Defendants’ deadline to respond to the Hawaii Complaint
will be stayed. When the stay is lifted, a new deadline for Defendants’ response to the Hawaii
Complaint will be issued. If the stay motions are denied, then Judge Kobayashi will set forth the
deadline for Defendants’ response to the Hawaii Complaint.
2

1

Hawaii Actions. This is the first stipulation requesting a new schedule for the response to the

2

Amended Complaint due to the Criminal Indictment and for Plaintiff’s response to the Stay

3

Motion.

4
5

Dated: February 4, 2019

6
7

By: /s/Patrick R. Leverty
Patrick R. Leverty
LEVERTY & ASSOCIATES LAW CHTD.
832 Willow Street
Reno, NV 89502

8
Phillip Kim
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
New York, NY 10016

9
10
11

Attorneys for Plaintiff
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

Dated: February 4, 2019

By: /s/Joel M. Eads
_ Mark E. Ferrario
Christopher R. Miltenberger
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
3773 Howard Hughes Parkway
Suite 400 North
Las Vegas, NV 89169
Joel M. Eads
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
2700 Two Commerce Square
2001 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103

22
23

Attorneys for
Defendant

Defendants

and

Nominal

24
25
26
27
28

IT IS SO ORDERED:
________________________________________________
LARRY R. HICKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
DATED: February 5, 2019
3