Menos v. Taylor et al

Filing 61

ORDER granting ECF No. 60 Stipulation To Extend Time re ECF No. 49 Amended Complaint. Answer/response due by 9/10/2019. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 8/28/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LH)

Case 3:17-cv-00662-LRH-CBC Document 60 Filed 08/26/19 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

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

(Second Request)

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

24
25
26
27
28

ACTIVE 45450752v1

1

Case 3:17-cv-00662-LRH-CBC Document 60 Filed 08/26/19 Page 2 of 4

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

STIPULATION REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO AMENDED
COMPLAINT AND REQUESTING THE REOPENING OF THE ACTION
Pursuant to LR IA 6-1 and LR IA 6-2, Plaintiff Hans Menos (“Plaintiff”), by and through
his counsel the law firms of Leverty & Associates Law Chtd. Ltd. and The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
and Defendants Jeffery L. Taylor, Don L. Taylor, L. John Lewis, S. Randall Oveson and Gannon
Giguiere (collectively, “Individual Defendants”) and Nominal Defendant Eco Science Solutions,
Inc. (“Nominal Defendant” and with Individual Defendants, “Defendants” and with Plaintiff, the
“Parties”), by and through their counsel, the law firm of Greenberg Traurig, LLP, hereby stipulate
and agree:
WHEREAS, on February 5, 2019, the Court entered the Parties’ Stipulation and Order
Regarding Defendants’ Response to Amended Complaint and Plaintiffs’ Response to the
Emergency Motion to Stay Civil Case (the “February Order”) (Dkt. No. 55). Pursuant to the
February Order, if Judge Kobayashi denied the motion to stay in the related derivative actions,
Bell v. Taylor, et al., Case No. 17-cv-00530 (D. Hawaii) and D’Annunzio v. Taylor, et al., Case
No. 18-cv-00016 (D. Hawaii) (the “Hawaii Actions”), then Defendants will withdraw their
Emergency Motion to Stay Civil Case (“Stay Motion”) (Dkt. No. 52) and the Parties would agree
to a schedule for the response to the Verified First Amended Shareholder Derivative Complaint
(“Amended Complaint”). On April 26, 2019, Judge Kobayashi denied the motion to stay in the
Hawaii Actions;
WHEREAS, on August 6, 2019, Defendants withdrew the Stay Motion (Dkt. No. 57).
WHEREAS, there are additional related proceedings in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California (U.S. v. Giguiere, Case No. 18CR3071-WQH) previously
scheduled for an August trial but which resolved with a plea agreement on July 23, 2019;
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;

26
27
28

ACTIVE 45450752v1

2

Case 3:17-cv-00662-LRH-CBC Document 60 Filed 08/26/19 Page 3 of 4

1

WHEREAS, the parties in this action have preliminarily discussed alternative dispute

2

resolution, are continuing these discussions, and require time to continue those discussions and

3

potentially coordinate with the parties to the related derivative actions;

4

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

5

1.

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

6

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

7

Complaint”) by September 10, 2019.

8

2.

The parties agree that if they continue to make progress in their discussions about

9

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

10

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

11

the Court’s approval.

12

3.

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

13

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

14

21, 2019 and Defendants shall file a reply to Plaintiff’s opposition by November 11, 2019.

15

4.

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

16

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

17

above-captioned case.

18

///

19

///

20
21
22
23
24

SEE NEXT PAGE FOR ORDER

25
26
27
28

ACTIVE 45450752v1

3

Case 3:17-cv-00662-LRH-CBC Document 60 Filed 08/26/19 Page 4 of 4

1
2

This is the second stipulation requesting a new schedule for the response to the Amended
Complaint since a decision in the Hawaii Action on the stay issue.

3
4

Dated: August 26, 2019

5
6
7

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

8
9
10
11
12

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

Attorneys for Plaintiff
Dated: August 26, 2019

13
14
15

By: /s/ Christopher R. Miltenberger
Mark E. Ferrario
Christopher R. Miltenberger
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
10845 Griffith Peak Drive, Suite 600
Las Vegas, NV 89135
Joel M. Eads
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
1717 Arch Street, Suite 400
Philadelphia, PA 19103

16
17
18

Attorneys for
Defendant

19
20

and

Nominal

IT IS SO ORDERED:

21

DATED this 28th day of August, 2019.
________________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT/MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22
23

DATED: ____________________
_________________________________
LARRY R. HICKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28

Defendants

ACTIVE 45450752v1

4