Menos v. Taylor et al

Filing 63

ORDER granting nunc pro tunc ECF No. 62 Stipulation to Extend Time re ECF No. 49 Amended Complaint. Answer/response due by 9/13/2019. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 9/11/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LH)

Case 3:17-cv-00662-LRH-CBC Document 62 Filed 09/10/19 Page 1 of 3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

MARK E. FERRARIO
Nevada Bar No. 1625
CHRISTOPHER R. MILTENBERGER
Nevada Bar No. 10153
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
10845 Griffith Peak Drive, Suite 600
Las Vegas, Nevada 89135
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
JOEL M. EADS (pro hac vice)
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
1717 Arch Street, Suite 400
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Counsel for Defendants Jeffery L. Taylor, Don L. Taylor,
L. John Lewis, S. Randall Oveson, and Gannon Giguiere, and for
Nominal Defendant Eco Science Solutions, Inc.

12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

14
15
16
17
18
19

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

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS’
RESPONSE TO AMENDED
COMPLAINT [ECF 61]

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

20
21

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

(Third Request)

Defendants,
and

22

ECO SCIENCE SOLUTIONS, INC.,

23

Nominal Defendant.

24
25

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

26

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

27

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

28

ACTIVE 45707220v1

1

Case 3:17-cv-00662-LRH-CBC Document 62 Filed 09/10/19 Page 2 of 3

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

and agree:

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

Hawaii Actions;

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19
20

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;

21

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

22

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

23

potentially coordinate with the parties to the related derivative actions;

24

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

25

1.

Defendants shall file an answer to Plaintiff’s Verified Amended Shareholder

26

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

27

by September 13, 2019.

28

ACTIVE 45707220v1

2

Case 3:17-cv-00662-LRH-CBC Document 62 Filed 09/10/19 Page 3 of 3

1

2.

The parties will continue to discuss alternative dispute resolution.

2

3.

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

3

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

4

above-captioned case.

5
6

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

7
8

Dated: September 10, 2019

Dated: September 10, 2019

9

By: /s/ Patrick R. Leverty
Patrick R. Leverty

By: /s/ Christopher R. Miltenberger
Mark E. Ferrario
Christopher R. Miltenberger

10
11
12
13
14
15
16

LEVERTY & ASSOCIATES LAW CHTD.

832 Willow Street
Reno, NV 89502

GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP

10845 Griffith Peak Drive, Suite 600
Las Vegas, NV 89135

Phillip Kim

Joel M. Eads

THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
th

275 Madison Avenue, 34 Floor
New York, NY 10016

GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP

1717 Arch Street, Suite 400
Philadelphia, PA 19103

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Attorneys for Defendants and Nominal
Defendant

17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED:, nunc pro tunc.

19

DATED this 11th day of September, 2019.
________________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT/MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21

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

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ACTIVE 45707220v1

3