Haro, III v. Thomas Keller Restaurant Group
Opinion
1 ROBERT S. LARSEN, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 7785 2 DIONE C. WRENN, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 13285 3 GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP 4 300 South 4th Street, Suite 1550 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 5 Telephone: (702) 577-9300 Facsimile: (702) 255-2858 6 E-Mail: rlarsen@grsm.com 7 dwrenn@grsm.com
8 Attorneys for Defendants, KRM, Inc, d.b.a Thomas Keller Restaurant Group and 9 KVP, LP d.b.a. Bouchon Restaurant
10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 12 FERNANDO HARO III, an individual, ) CASE NO.: 2:20-cv-02113-APG-DJA 13 ) Plaintiff, ) 14 ) STIPULATION AND ORDER TO vs. ) EXTEND TIME TO FILE 15 ) RESPONSE TO KRM, INC, d.b.a THOMAS KELLER FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT ) 16 R anE dS TT KA U MR AA NN AT G G ER MO EU NP T, , a L F Lo Cre , i ag n F oC ro eir gp no r La it mio in t; e d ) (First Request) 17 Liability Company; and TK LAS VEGAS, LLC ) d.b.a “BOUCHON AT THE VENETIAN”, a ) 18 Foreign Limited Liability Company, ) ) 19 Defendants. )
20 Pursuant to Local Rule 7-1, Defendants KRM, Inc, d.b.a Thomas Keller Restaurant 21 Group (“KRM”) and KVP, LP d.b.a. Bouchon Restaurant (erroneously named as TK Las Vegas, 22 LLC d.b.a “Bouchon at the Venetian”) (“KVP”) (collectively, “Defendants”), by and through 23 their attorneys, Robert S. Larsen, Esq. and Dione C. Wrenn, Esq. of the law firm of Gordon Rees 24 Scully Mansukhani LLP, and Plaintiff Fernando Haro III, in proper person, hereby stipulate and 25 agree as follows: 26 1. Plaintiff filed his Complaint on November 16, 2020 [ECF No. 1]. 27 2. Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint on February 22, 2021 (“FAC”) [ECF No. 9]. 1 3. On April 19, 2021, Plaintiff filed an Application for Entry of Clerk’s Default against 2 Defendant TK Las Vegas, LLC d.b.a. Bouchon at the Venetian (“Application”) [ECF No. 14]. 3 4. On May 3, 2021, KVP filed its Objection to Plaintiff’s Application (“Objection”) 4 [ECF No. 15]. 5 5. In its Objection, KVP argued that Plaintiff’s service on TK Las Vegas, LLC was not 6 in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Plaintiff’s improper service was for 7 an entity that Plaintiff knew was not the “entity through which [TKRG] operates ‘Bouchon at the 8 Venetian’ […].” See ECF No. 15. 9 6. On May 12, 2021, the Court issued its Order Denying Application for Entry of 10 Clerk’s Default (“Order”) [ECF No. 17]. 11 7. Pursuant to the Court’s Order, the Court set the deadline for Defendants to file their 12 responses to the Plaintiff’s Complaint as June 21, 2021. See ECF No. 17. 13 8. The Court further ordered the Parties to meet and confer regarding whether a 14 stipulation to amend the First Amended Complaint would be necessary to identify the correct 15 entities. Id. 16 9. The Parties conferred via electronic mail regarding amendment of the operative 17 complaint per the Court’s directive. 18 10. The Parties shall submit a stipulation and proposed order to amend Plaintiff’s First 19 Amended Complaint solely to properly identify the named defendant-entities on or before June 20 24, 2021. 21 11. Defendants request additional time to file their response(s) to the operative complaint 22 up to and including July 2, 2021. 23 12. This extension is sought to allow sufficient time for the Parties to file and receive an 24 order from the Court on the forthcoming stipulation to amend the First Amended Complaint, and 25 for Plaintiff to subsequently file the related Second Amended Complaint. 26 13. Plaintiff does not oppose Defendants’ requested extension(s). 27 14. Accordingly, Defendants will file their response(s) to Plaintiff’s SAC no later than 1 15. This stipulation is not made for purposes of delay. 2 IT IS SO STIPULATED. 3 |] DATED this 21 day of June 2021. DATED this 21° day of June 2021. + || GORDON REES SCULLY FERNANDO HARO III 5 MANSUKHANI 6 || Dione C. Wrenn /s/ Fernando Haro 7 ROBERT S. LARSEN, ESQ. FERNANDO HARO III Nevada Bar No. 7785 Pe pox ey 89180 as Vegas, g || DIONE C. WRENN, ESQ. ws Nevada Bar No. 13285 Plaintiff In Proper Person 9 || 300 South 4" Street, Suite 1550 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 10 Attorneys for Defendants, KRM, Inc, d.b.a Thomas Keller Restaurant 11 Group and KVP, LP d.b.a. Bouchon Restaurant Oi
13 IT IS SO ORDERED, ; □
a 15 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
nS 5% 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Haro, III v. Thomas Keller Restaurant Group (Haro, III v. Thomas Keller Restaurant Group) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.