Menos v. Taylor et al

Filing 59

ORDER granting 58 Stipulation : Case reopened. Answer/response to ECF No. 49 Amended Complaint due by 8/27/2019. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 8/7/2019.;. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

Case 3:17-cv-00662-LRH-CBC Document 58 Filed 08/07/19 Page 1 of 4

1
2
3
4
5
6

Patrick R. Leverty, Esq.
LEVERTY & ASSOCIATES LAW CHTD.
Reno Gould House
832 Willow Street
Reno, NV 89502
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

10

Phillip Kim
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

11

Counsel for Plaintiff

7
8
9

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 [PROPOSED]
ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS’
RESPONSE TO AMENDED
COMPLAINT AND THE REOPENING
OF THE ACTION

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
20
21
22
23

(First Request)

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

24
25
26
27
28
1

Case 3:17-cv-00662-LRH-CBC Document 58 Filed 08/07/19 Page 2 of 4

1

STIPULATION REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO AMENDED
COMPLAINT AND REQUESTING THE REOPENING OF THE ACTION

2

Pursuant to LR IA 6-1 and LR IA 6-2, Plaintiff Hans Menos (“Plaintiff”), by and through

3

his counsel the law firms of Leverty & Associates Law Chtd. Ltd. and The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.

4

and Defendants Jeffery L. Taylor, Don L. Taylor, L. John Lewis, S. Randall Oveson and Gannon

5

Giguiere (collectively, “Individual Defendants”) and Nominal Defendant Eco Science Solutions,

6

Inc. (“Nominal Defendant” and with Individual Defendants, “Defendants” and with Plaintiff, the

7

“Parties”), by and through their counsel, the law firm of Greenberg Traurig, LLP, hereby stipulate

8

and agree:

9

WHEREAS, on February 5, 2019, the Court entered the Parties’ Stipulation and Order

10

Regarding Defendants’ Response to Amended Complaint and Plaintiffs’ Response to the

11

Emergency Motion to Stay Civil Case (the “February Order”) (Dkt. No. 55). Pursuant to the

12

February Order, if Judge Kobayashi denied the motion to stay in the related derivative actions,

13

Bell v. Taylor, et al., Case No. 17-cv-00530 (D. Hawaii) and D’Annunzio v. Taylor, et al., Case

14

No. 18-cv-00016 (D. Hawaii) (the “Hawaii Actions”), then Defendants will withdraw their

15

Emergency Motion to Stay Civil Case (“Stay Motion”) (Dkt. No. 52) and the Parties would agree

16

to a schedule for the response to the Verified First Amended Shareholder Derivative Complaint

17

(“Amended Complaint”). On April 26, 2019, Judge Kobayashi denied the motion to stay in the

18

Hawaii Actions;

19

WHEREAS, on August 6, 2019, Defendants withdrew the Stay Motion (Dkt. No. 57).

20

WHEREAS, there are additional related proceedings in the United States District Court

21

for the Southern District of California (U.S. v. Giguiere, Case No. 18CR3071-WQH) previously

22

scheduled for an August trial but which resolved with a plea agreement on July 23, 2019;

23
24
25
26

WHEREAS, the parties in this action were monitoring the related proceedings, the
closure of which provides some guidance to the prosecution and defense of this action;
WHEREAS, the parties in this action have preliminarily discussed alternative dispute
resolution and require time to continue those discussions;

27
28
2

Case 3:17-cv-00662-LRH-CBC Document 58 Filed 08/07/19 Page 3 of 4

1

WHEREAS, on August 5, 2019, the Court administratively terminated the action and

2

allowed the parties to request to reopen upon the filing of a status report or joint stipulation (Dkt.

3

No. 56),

4

NOW, THEREFORE, the parties in this action stipulate and agree as follows:

5

1.

The Parties request that the Court administratively reopen the action.

6

2.

Defendants shall answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff’s Verified Amended

7

Shareholder Derivative Complaint filed with this Court on December 21, 2018 (the “Amended

8

Complaint”) by August 27, 2019.

9

3.

The parties agree that if they are making progress in their discussions about

10

alternative dispute resolution, they agree to meet and confer and discuss the possibility of an

11

additional extension of Defendants’ deadlines to respond to the complaint, subject of course to

12

the Court’s approval.

13

4.

In the event that the Defendants respond to Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint by

14

moving to dismiss, Plaintiff shall file an opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss by October

15

7, 2019 and Defendants shall file a reply to Plaintiff’s opposition by October 28, 2019.

16

5.

This request is made in good faith and not for the purpose of delay. Rather the

17

stipulation and schedule set forth above will further the efficient and expedient disposition of the

18

above-captioned case.

19

This is the first stipulation requesting a new schedule for the response to the Amended

20

Complaint since a decision in the Hawaii Action on the stay issue. It is also the first stipulation

21

requesting that the Court administratively reopen the action.

22
23

Dated: August 7, 2019

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

24
25
26

Phillip Kim
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor

27
28
3

Case 3:17-cv-00662-LRH-CBC Document 58 Filed 08/07/19 Page 4 of 4

New York, NY 10016

1

Attorneys for Plaintiff

2
3
4
5

Dated: August 7, 2019

By: /s/ Joel M. Eads
Mark E. Ferrario
Christopher R. Miltenberger
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
10845 Griffith Peak Drive
Suite 600
Las Vegas, NV 89135

6
7
8
9

Joel M. Eads
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
1717 Arch Street
Suite 400
Philadelphia, PA 19103

10
11
12

Attorneys for
Defendant

13

Defendants

and

Nominal

14
15
16
17
18
19
20

ORDER
IT IS SO ORDERED:
IT IS SO ORDERED.

________________________________________________
DATED this 7th day of August, 2019.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT/MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DATED: ____________________
_________________________________
LARRY R. HICKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4