Rich Media Club et al v. Mentchoukov et al

Filing 192

MEMORANDUM DECISION and ORDER denying 177 Plaintiffs' Motion for Extension of Time. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells on 07/09/2012. (tls)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
RICH MEDIA CLUB, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company, and RICH MEDIA
WORLDWIDE, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company,

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME
Case No. 2:11-cv-1202

Plaintiffs,
v.

District Judge Ted Stewart

NIKOLAI MENTCHOUKOV, JAMES W.
ROWAN, and LEFTSNRIGHTS, INC., a
Delaware corporation, dba LIQWID, and
JOHN DOES 1–25,
Defendants.

Magistrate Judge Brooke Wells

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Rich Media Club, LLC and Rich Media
Worldwide, LLC Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
the Amended Complaint. 1 Defendants filed an opposition to the instant motion on June 20,
2012, and although unnecessary, as of the date of this decision Plaintiffs have elected to not file a
reply. As set forth below the Court DENIES the motion.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs commenced this lawsuit on December 23, 2011. Shortly thereafter the parties
engaged in expedited discovery. On April 3, 2012, Judge Stewart entered a Memorandum
Decision and Order granting in part Defendants’ first Motion to Dismiss.2 A month later on May
3, 2012, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint. 3 Subsequently on May 17, 2012, Defendants
moved to dismiss six of Plaintiffs’ eight newly asserted claims and to once again dismiss
1

Docket no. 177.

2

Memorandum Decision and Order dated April 3, 2012, docket no. 115.

3

Docket no. 140.

Defendant Rowan from this lawsuit. 4 Five days later on May 22, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a motion
seeking to dismiss their own Amended Complaint for lack of jurisdiction. 5 Plaintiffs filed the
instant motion for an extension of time approximately a month later on the same day their
opposition was due to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiffs ask this Court for an enlargement of time to respond to Defendants’ Motion to
Dismiss the Amended Complaint. Specifically, Plaintiffs seek an extension of ten days after the
Court rules on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Dismiss their own Amended Complaint for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction. 6 In that motion Plaintiffs seek to dismiss their Amended Complaint and
refile it in the appropriate state court, or have the matter referred to arbitration. 7 Plaintiffs assert
an extension is warranted because otherwise they will have to “continue to expend needless
resources on a matter that is likely to be refilled in state court.” 8
Defendants oppose Plaintiffs’ request for an extension of time. Defendants argue that
“[i]n short, Plaintiffs would like this Court to rule on the Motions and proceedings that are in
Plaintiffs’ interests while they are excused from even responding to Motions that Defendants
have brought.” 9 Thus, what Plaintiffs seek is to have their Motion to Dismiss for lack of
jurisdiction heard before the Court renders a decision on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the
Amended Complaint on the merits.

4

Docket no. 148.

5

Docket no. 155.

6

Docket no. 155.

7

Motion p. 2.

8

Id.

9

Op. p. 5.

2

The Court agrees with Defendants arguments. There is no justifiable reason—in this case
and at this time—that the Court should favor one party’s motions over another. Indeed,
Plaintiffs cited reason of cost savings could apply equally to Defendants cost savings of not
having to defend this action again in state court should they prevail on their pending motion to
dismiss Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint on the merits.
ORDER
Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion for an Extension of Time to Respond to Defendants’
Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint 10 is HEREBY DENIED. Plaintiffs are to file any
opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss within 7 days from the date of this decision.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 9 July 2012.

Brooke C. Wells
United States Magistrate Judge

10

Docket no. 177.

3