1 Marquis Aurbach Brian R. Hardy, Esq. 2 Nevada Bar No. 10068 Harry L. Arnold, Esq. 3 Nevada Bar No. 15866 10001 Park Run Drive 4 Las Vegas, Nevada 89145 Telephone: (702) 382-0711 5 Facsimile: (702) 382-5816 bhardy@maclaw.com 6 harnold@maclaw.com 7 Law Offices of Philip A. Kantor PC Philip A. Kantor, Esq. 8 Nevada Bar No. 6701 1781 Village Center Circle, Suite 120 9 Las Vegas, Nevada 89134 prsak@aya.yale.edu 10 Attorneys for Defendant/Counterclaimant CBJ Distributing LLC d/b/a 11 Cannabiz Supply, North American Distributing, LLC d/b/a Cannabiz Supply, and Charles J. Fox 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 13 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 14 A&A GLOBAL IMPORTS, INC., Case Number: 15 a California corporation, 2:22-cv-00576-RFB-DJA Plaintiff, 16 vs. STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 17 CBJ DISTRIBUTING LLC d/b/a ORDER TO STAY AND EXTEND CANNABIZ SUPPLY, a Nevada limited DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO JUNE 5, 18 liability company; NORTH AMERICAN 2024 MINUTE ORDER (FIFTH DISTRIBUTING, LLC d/b/a CANNABIZ REQUEST) 19 SUPPLY, a Nevada limited liability company; and CHARLES J. FOX, an 20 individual, Defendants. 21 NORTH AMERICAN 22 DISTRIBUTING, LLC d/b/a CANNABIZ SUPPLY, a Nevada limited liability 23 Company, Counterclaimant, 24 vs. 25 A&A GLOBAL IMPORTS, INC., a California corporation, 26 Counterdefendant. 27 1 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO STAY AND EXTEND DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO JUNE 5, 2024 MINUTE ORDER (FIFTH REQUEST) 2 Plaintiff/Counterdefendant A&A GLOBAL IMPORTS, INC. (“Plaintiff”), by and 3 through its counsel of record, the law firms of Blank Rome LLP and Lewis Roca Rothgerber 4 Christie LLP, and Defendants/Counterclaimant CBJ DISTRIBUTING LLC d/b/a 5 CANNABIZ SUPPLY, NORTH AMERICAN DISTRIBUTING, LLC d/b/a CANNABIZ 6 SUPPLY, and CHARLES J. FOX (“Defendants”, collectively with Plaintiff, the “Parties”), 7 by and through their counsel of record, the law firm of Marquis Aurbach and the Law Offices 8 of Philip A. Kantor PC, hereby move pursuant to this Court’s June 5, 2024 Minute Order and 9 stipulate as follows to stay the discovery deadlines in this case for five (5) months as detailed 10 herein, on the basis of earnest settlement discussions: 11 A. COMPLETED DISCOVERY 12 As previously reported, the Parties have engaged in considerable discovery, with both 13 Plaintiff and Defendants serving and responding to multiple sets of interrogatories, requests 14 for admission and requests for production. The Parties have conducted multiple meet-and- 15 confer conferences regarding the aforementioned written discovery and have both 16 supplemented their discovery responses multiple times. 17 B. REMAINING DISCOVERY & COST/BURDEN OF REMAINING 18 DISCOVERY 19 The Parties are close to completing all necessary discovery. The only remaining items 20 the parties contemplate conducting are depositions and selected written discovery as 21 referenced in correspondence between the parties as of January 26, 2024. 22 Completing this remaining discovery will entail considerable cost/expense that should 23 otherwise be expended towards the continued possible settlement of the instant matter. With 24 respect to the estimated 4-5 depositions in particular that will need to be taken, said 25 depositions will require out-of-state travel and accommodation for both Plaintiff’s counsel 26 and Plaintiff, as well as significant time and preparation on both sides. 27 As things currently stand, the Parties have been, and continue to be able to pursue 1 come at a significant savings to both parties. The parties fear that the sudden need to expend 2 significant attorney’s fees and costs completing the remainder of discovery, and thereafter 3 engaging in significant summary judgment motion work, could detract from, and worse, 4 reverse, the progress being made in the ongoing settlement discussions. 5 C. THERE IS GOOD CAUSE TO STAY THE CASE PENDING 6 SETTLEMENT TALKS 7 The parties’ principals have been in direct negotiations and believe a limited five- 8 month standstill of the litigation would greatly benefit their ongoing settlement efforts. 9 Accordingly, they have asked their respective counsel to request a standstill of the litigation 10 for 5 months. 11 This Court, in Gibson v. MGM Resorts Int'l, No. 223CV00140MMDDJA, 2023 WL 12 4455726, at *2 (D. Nev. July 11, 2023), adopted a new framework to determine whether to 13 grant a stay of discovery based on an analysis by the Honorable Judge Brenda Weksler in 14 Schrader v. Wynn Las Vegas, LLC, No. 219CV02159JCMBNW, 2021 WL 4810324, at *4 15 (D. Nev. Oct. 14, 2021). In Schrader, the Court articulated that it “may grant motions to 16 stay discovery when a dispositive motion is pending if (1) the dispositive motion can be 17 decided without further discovery; and (2) good cause exists to stay discovery.” Id. 18 However, “good cause may exist based on other factors unrelated to the merits of the 19 dispositive motion.” Id. For example, “In many cases, the movant seeks a stay of discovery 20 to prevent ‘undue burden or expense.’” Id. (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1).) The movant 21 would need to establish what undue burdens or expense will result absent a stay and any 22 party opposing the stay is encouraged to discuss any specific reasons why a stay would be 23 harmful or prejudicial. Id. Ultimately, the Court’s analysis is guided by Rule 1 of the Federal 24 Rules of Civil Procedure, where the Court is trying to determine “whether it is more just to 25 speed the parties along in discovery and other proceedings while a dispositive motion is 26 pending, or whether it is more just to delay or limit discovery and other proceedings to 27 accomplish the inexpensive determination of the case.” Id. (citing Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, 1 In the present case, the parties’ request for a stay is premised on the exact good cause 2 articulated by the Schrader Court: the parties’ desire to avoid “undue burden or expense.” 3 After the Court’s previous grant of extension of discovery (ECF No. 92), the parties’ 4 principals have engaged in several substantive and meaningful settlement discussions about 5 a resolution of this case. As previously represented by Plaintiff’s counsel in prior filings, 6 Plaintiff has recently undergone a significant and comprehensive change in ownership – one 7 that essentially equates to a new party being substituted into the case. This has created an 8 enormous logistical challenge in terms of being able to substantively advance the case. 9 Moreover, and without delving into the substance of settlement discussions, the recent 10 change in Plaintiff’s ownership has brought about circumstances that have made settlement 11 more of a concrete possibility than before. The ongoing and substantive settlement 12 discussions have led the parties to believe that they need some additional time to conduct 13 certain due diligence and internal business transitions to complete their settlement talks.1 14 For this limited purpose, the parties agreed to a five-month standstill of the litigation. This 15 extension is being brought in the interest of justice and efficiency, and not for the purposes 16 of undue delay. 17 Though of course there is no “dispositive” motion before this Court as referenced in 18 Gibson and Shrader,2 both of those decisions noted that good cause may exist on factors not 19 related to any such motions. Schrader, 2021 WL 4810324, at *4 (“good cause may exist 20 based on other factors unrelated to the merits of the dispositive motion”); Gibson, 2023 WL 21 4455726, at *3 (good cause may be establish “by other factors not related to the merits of 22 the dispositive motion”).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 Marquis Aurbach Brian R. Hardy, Esq. 2 Nevada Bar No. 10068 Harry L. Arnold, Esq. 3 Nevada Bar No. 15866 10001 Park Run Drive 4 Las Vegas, Nevada 89145 Telephone: (702) 382-0711 5 Facsimile: (702) 382-5816 bhardy@maclaw.com 6 harnold@maclaw.com 7 Law Offices of Philip A. Kantor PC Philip A. Kantor, Esq. 8 Nevada Bar No. 6701 1781 Village Center Circle, Suite 120 9 Las Vegas, Nevada 89134 prsak@aya.yale.edu 10 Attorneys for Defendant/Counterclaimant CBJ Distributing LLC d/b/a 11 Cannabiz Supply, North American Distributing, LLC d/b/a Cannabiz Supply, and Charles J. Fox 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 13 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 14 A&A GLOBAL IMPORTS, INC., Case Number: 15 a California corporation, 2:22-cv-00576-RFB-DJA Plaintiff, 16 vs. STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 17 CBJ DISTRIBUTING LLC d/b/a ORDER TO STAY AND EXTEND CANNABIZ SUPPLY, a Nevada limited DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO JUNE 5, 18 liability company; NORTH AMERICAN 2024 MINUTE ORDER (FIFTH DISTRIBUTING, LLC d/b/a CANNABIZ REQUEST) 19 SUPPLY, a Nevada limited liability company; and CHARLES J. FOX, an 20 individual, Defendants. 21 NORTH AMERICAN 22 DISTRIBUTING, LLC d/b/a CANNABIZ SUPPLY, a Nevada limited liability 23 Company, Counterclaimant, 24 vs. 25 A&A GLOBAL IMPORTS, INC., a California corporation, 26 Counterdefendant. 27 1 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO STAY AND EXTEND DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO JUNE 5, 2024 MINUTE ORDER (FIFTH REQUEST) 2 Plaintiff/Counterdefendant A&A GLOBAL IMPORTS, INC. (“Plaintiff”), by and 3 through its counsel of record, the law firms of Blank Rome LLP and Lewis Roca Rothgerber 4 Christie LLP, and Defendants/Counterclaimant CBJ DISTRIBUTING LLC d/b/a 5 CANNABIZ SUPPLY, NORTH AMERICAN DISTRIBUTING, LLC d/b/a CANNABIZ 6 SUPPLY, and CHARLES J. FOX (“Defendants”, collectively with Plaintiff, the “Parties”), 7 by and through their counsel of record, the law firm of Marquis Aurbach and the Law Offices 8 of Philip A. Kantor PC, hereby move pursuant to this Court’s June 5, 2024 Minute Order and 9 stipulate as follows to stay the discovery deadlines in this case for five (5) months as detailed 10 herein, on the basis of earnest settlement discussions: 11 A. COMPLETED DISCOVERY 12 As previously reported, the Parties have engaged in considerable discovery, with both 13 Plaintiff and Defendants serving and responding to multiple sets of interrogatories, requests 14 for admission and requests for production. The Parties have conducted multiple meet-and- 15 confer conferences regarding the aforementioned written discovery and have both 16 supplemented their discovery responses multiple times. 17 B. REMAINING DISCOVERY & COST/BURDEN OF REMAINING 18 DISCOVERY 19 The Parties are close to completing all necessary discovery. The only remaining items 20 the parties contemplate conducting are depositions and selected written discovery as 21 referenced in correspondence between the parties as of January 26, 2024. 22 Completing this remaining discovery will entail considerable cost/expense that should 23 otherwise be expended towards the continued possible settlement of the instant matter. With 24 respect to the estimated 4-5 depositions in particular that will need to be taken, said 25 depositions will require out-of-state travel and accommodation for both Plaintiff’s counsel 26 and Plaintiff, as well as significant time and preparation on both sides. 27 As things currently stand, the Parties have been, and continue to be able to pursue 1 come at a significant savings to both parties. The parties fear that the sudden need to expend 2 significant attorney’s fees and costs completing the remainder of discovery, and thereafter 3 engaging in significant summary judgment motion work, could detract from, and worse, 4 reverse, the progress being made in the ongoing settlement discussions. 5 C. THERE IS GOOD CAUSE TO STAY THE CASE PENDING 6 SETTLEMENT TALKS 7 The parties’ principals have been in direct negotiations and believe a limited five- 8 month standstill of the litigation would greatly benefit their ongoing settlement efforts. 9 Accordingly, they have asked their respective counsel to request a standstill of the litigation 10 for 5 months. 11 This Court, in Gibson v. MGM Resorts Int'l, No. 223CV00140MMDDJA, 2023 WL 12 4455726, at *2 (D. Nev. July 11, 2023), adopted a new framework to determine whether to 13 grant a stay of discovery based on an analysis by the Honorable Judge Brenda Weksler in 14 Schrader v. Wynn Las Vegas, LLC, No. 219CV02159JCMBNW, 2021 WL 4810324, at *4 15 (D. Nev. Oct. 14, 2021). In Schrader, the Court articulated that it “may grant motions to 16 stay discovery when a dispositive motion is pending if (1) the dispositive motion can be 17 decided without further discovery; and (2) good cause exists to stay discovery.” Id. 18 However, “good cause may exist based on other factors unrelated to the merits of the 19 dispositive motion.” Id. For example, “In many cases, the movant seeks a stay of discovery 20 to prevent ‘undue burden or expense.’” Id. (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1).) The movant 21 would need to establish what undue burdens or expense will result absent a stay and any 22 party opposing the stay is encouraged to discuss any specific reasons why a stay would be 23 harmful or prejudicial. Id. Ultimately, the Court’s analysis is guided by Rule 1 of the Federal 24 Rules of Civil Procedure, where the Court is trying to determine “whether it is more just to 25 speed the parties along in discovery and other proceedings while a dispositive motion is 26 pending, or whether it is more just to delay or limit discovery and other proceedings to 27 accomplish the inexpensive determination of the case.” Id. (citing Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, 1 In the present case, the parties’ request for a stay is premised on the exact good cause 2 articulated by the Schrader Court: the parties’ desire to avoid “undue burden or expense.” 3 After the Court’s previous grant of extension of discovery (ECF No. 92), the parties’ 4 principals have engaged in several substantive and meaningful settlement discussions about 5 a resolution of this case. As previously represented by Plaintiff’s counsel in prior filings, 6 Plaintiff has recently undergone a significant and comprehensive change in ownership – one 7 that essentially equates to a new party being substituted into the case. This has created an 8 enormous logistical challenge in terms of being able to substantively advance the case. 9 Moreover, and without delving into the substance of settlement discussions, the recent 10 change in Plaintiff’s ownership has brought about circumstances that have made settlement 11 more of a concrete possibility than before. The ongoing and substantive settlement 12 discussions have led the parties to believe that they need some additional time to conduct 13 certain due diligence and internal business transitions to complete their settlement talks.1 14 For this limited purpose, the parties agreed to a five-month standstill of the litigation. This 15 extension is being brought in the interest of justice and efficiency, and not for the purposes 16 of undue delay. 17 Though of course there is no “dispositive” motion before this Court as referenced in 18 Gibson and Shrader,2 both of those decisions noted that good cause may exist on factors not 19 related to any such motions. Schrader, 2021 WL 4810324, at *4 (“good cause may exist 20 based on other factors unrelated to the merits of the dispositive motion”); Gibson, 2023 WL 21 4455726, at *3 (good cause may be establish “by other factors not related to the merits of 22 the dispositive motion”). Nonetheless, the Parties jointly and respectfully submit that the 23 ongoing settlement discussions has the same “dispositive” effect as a dispositive motion 24 25 1 Due to the sensitive and confidential nature of the discussions, the parties have refrained 26 from public disclosure of the substance of those discussions in this stipulation. However, if the Court would like additional details, the parties will agree to submit such information to 27 the Court under seal. 2 See generally Gibson v. MGM Resorts Int'l, No. 223CV00140MMDDJA, 2023 WL 4455726 (D. Nev. July 11, 2023). 1 because the settlement discussions would potentially resolve the entire case. Thus, and 2 keeping in mind the second “good cause” factor articulated in Gibson and Shrader, the 3 Parties submit that significant undue burden/expense will arise in the event that the Parties 4 must shift their efforts away from the fruitful settlement discussions and to the remainder of 5 discovery/summary judgment – with this “burden” being not only in the form of the 6 additional attorney’s fees and costs, but also in the potentially forgone possibility to globally 7 settle the instant case. 8 Finally, as this request is sought jointly, neither party is asserting any claims of 9 prejudice. Schrader, 2021 WL 4810324, at *4. To the contrary, the parties fear that not 10 granting a stay and requiring them to expend the substantial time and expense of litigation 11 would undermine, if not remove, the possibility of settlement. 12 Ultimately, the parties’ request is in line with the objectives of Rule 1, where the 13 parties are seeking to secure the “inexpensive determination” of the case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. 14 Therefore, the Parties respectfully request this Court exercise its plenary authority to manage 15 its own docket and foster the “orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.” Reberger v. 16 Dzurenda, No. 317CV00552RCJCSD, 2022 WL 21778508 (D. Nev. Oct. 18, 2022), report 17 and recommendation adopted, No. 317CV00552RCJCSD, 2022 WL 21778513 (D. Nev. 18 Nov. 14, 2022). 19 D. PROPOSED NEW DISCOVERY SCHEDULE 20 Current Deadline New [Proposed] Deadline 21 Close of Discovery July 1, 2024 Discovery stayed until November 4, 2024. Then 22 discovery will re-commence automatically (if settlement 23 not reached beforehand) and end on December 2, 2024 24 Dispositive Motions August 1, 2024 January 2, 2025 25 Pretrial Order September 3, 2024 February 2, 2025, but if 26 dispositive motions are filed, then the date for filing the 27 joint pretrial order shall be suspended until thirty (30) 1 dispositive motions, or upon further order of the Court 2 extending the time period in which to file the joint pretrial 3 order 4 IT IS SO STIPULATED. 5 6 Dated this 14th day of June, 2024 Dated this 14th day of June, 2024 7 Submitted by: Approved as to content by: 8 MARQUIS AURBACH LEWIS ROCA ROTHGERBER 9 CHRISTIE LLP 10 By: /s/Harry L. Arnold By: /s/ Meng Zhong 11 Brian R. Hardy, Esq. Michael J. McCue Nevada Bar No. 10068 Nevada Bar No. 6055 12 Harry L. Arnold, Esq. Meng Zhong Nevada Bar No. 15866 Nevada Bar No. 12145 13 10001 Park Run Drive 3993 Howard Hughes Pkwy Ste 600 Las Vegas, Nevada 89145 Las Vegas, NV 89169 14 Law Offices of Philip A. Kantor PC Blank Rome LLP 15 Philip A. Kantor, Esq. Todd M. Malynn (admitted pro hac) Nevada Bar No. 6701 California Bar No. 181595 16 1781 Village Center Circle, Ste. 120 Arash Beral (admitted pro hac) Las Vegas, Nevada 89134 California Bar No. 245219 17 2029 Century Park Easte, Ste. 600 Attorney(s) for Defendants/ Los Angeles, CA 90067 18 Counterclaimants CBJ DISTRIBUTING LLC d/b/a CANNABIZ SUPPLY, Attorney(s) for Plaintiff/ 19 NORTH AMERICAN Counterdefendant A&A GLOBAL DISTRIBUTING, LLC d/b/a IMPORTS, INC. 20 CANNABIZ SUPPLY, and CHARLES J.FOX 21 22 ORDER 23 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, upon stipulation of counsel and good cause appearing 24 therefore, the Stipulation to stay and extend the discovery deadlines in this case is hereby 25 approved. 26 / / / 27 / / / 1}1T IS FURTHER HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the 2 || discovery deadlines shall be amended as follows: 3 1. Close of Discovery: Discovery stayed until November 4, 4 || 2024. Then discovery will re-commence automatically (if settlement not reached beforehand) 5 || and end on December 2, 2024. 6 2. Last Day to File Dispositive Motions: January 2, 2025 7 3. Joint Pretrial Order: February 2, 2025, but if dispositive 8 | motions are filed, then the date for filing the joint pretrial order shall be suspended until thirty 9 | (30) days after decisions on any dispositive motions, or upon further order of the Court 10 |] extending the time period in which to file the joint pretrial order 1]
12] IT IS SO ORDERED
14 Z UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DATED: __ 6/18/2024 16 TX
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Page 7 of 7 Co