1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 DISTRICT OF NEVADA HOFBRAUHAUS OF AMERICA, LLC, a_ | Case No. 2:22-cv-00421-ART-DJA Nevada limited liability company, 13 Plaintiff, 14 ORDER APPRVONG JOINT Vv. MOTION TO STAY ACTION TO 15 EXPLORE SETTLEMENT RESOLUTION OAK TREE MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., a Missouri corporation, WILLIAM 17|| GUY CROUCH, as Successor in Interest or Receiver for Oak Tree Management 18]| Services, Inc., 19 Defendants. 20 21 Plaintiff Hofbrauhaus of America, LLC (“Hofbraéuhaus America”), and Defendant 22|| William Guy Crouch, as Court-Appointed Receiver (the “Receiver”) for Oak Tree 23|| Management Services, Inc. (“Oak Tree”), by and through undersigned counsel, hereby 24|| stipulate and jointly move this Court to stay this action for eight (8) weeks while the parties 25|| explore settlement options. In support of this Stipulation, the parties respectfully state as follows: /// 28q///
1]| I. INTRODUCTION 2 The parties to this action are presently engaged in negotiations through which they see a reasonable possibility to resolve all disputes pending before this Court and those 4|| recently commenced by the Receiver in Missouri State Court, and which Hofbrauhaus 5|| America removed to the United States District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern 6|| Division, Case No. 4:22-cv-00527-AGF (the “Missouri Action”).! Given the complicated 7|| matters at issue in this case, a potential settlement includes a number of complex components that require sufficient time and effort to address. The parties submit that continuing this action and the Missouri Action during the parties’ resolution efforts would derail and distract from a 10|| viable potential settlement. 11 The parties jointly stipulate and move for the Court to enter a limited stay of eight (8) 12]| weeks in this action for the purpose of exploring resolution. This request is not made for the 13|| purposes of delay, but to reduce the burden of litigation while seeking a mutually beneficial 14]| solution. A stay would serve judicial economy and provide a fair opportunity to mitigate 15|| damages and preserve both parties’ rights. The Court has the inherent power to grant such a 16|| stay under terms the parties stipulate and the Court deems appropriate. 17 Accordingly, and for the reasons stated herein, the parties request this Court to enter 18]| an order staying this action for eight (8) weeks. ID. STATEMENT OF FACTS 20 Status of Pleadings and Motion Practice in Nevada 22 1. On or about March 7, 2022, Hofbrauhaus America filed its Complaint [ECF 1] 23|| On or about March 21, 2022, Hofbrauhaus America filed its Amended Complaint [ECF 6] 24|| asserting the following claims against the Receiver and Oak Tree: (1) Trademark Infringement 25|| per 15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq.; (ii) Trade Dress Infringement per 15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq.; (111) /// 27 The parties are simultaneously filing a similar joint motion to stay in the Missouri Action. 28
1}| Copyright Infringement per 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq.; and (iv) Declaratory Relief per NRS § 2|| 30.010 et seq. 3 2. On March 29, 2022, the Receiver filed a Motion to Dismiss, Stay or Transfer 4|| the Amended Complaint. [ECF 10] 5 3. On April 5, 2022, Hofbrauhaus America filed its Emergency Motion for 6|| Preliminary Injunction. [ECF 18] 7 4. On April 6, 2022, the Court issued a Minute Order denying Hofbrauhaus America’s Emergency Hearing Request. [ECF 21] 9 5. On April 12, 2022, Hofbrauhaus America filed its Opposition to the 10|| Receiver’s Motion to Dismiss, Stay or Transfer the Amended Complaint [ECF 22]. 11 6. On April 26, 2022, Receiver filed his Response and Opposition to 12|| Hofbrauhaus America’s Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunction. [ECF 26] 13 7. On April 27, 2022, Receiver filed his Reply in Support of his Motion to 14]| Dismiss, Stay or transfer the Amended Complaint. [ECF 27] 15 8. On May 13, 2022, Hofbrauhaus America filed its Reply in Support of its 16|| Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunction. [ECF 37] 17 9. On May 20, 2022, the Receiver filed a Motion for Leave to file a Sur-Reply to 18|| Hofbrauhaus America’s Reply in Support of its Emergency Motion for Preliminary 19]| Injunction. [ECF 41] 20 10. On June 3, 2022, Hofbrauhaus America filed an Opposition to the Receiver’s 21|| Motion for Leave to file a Sur-Reply. [ECF 44] 22 11. On May 20, 2022, the parties submitted and on May 23, 2022, the Court 23|| granted a Stipulated Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order [ECF 42] setting forth the 24|| following discovery schedule: 25 a. Discovery Cutoff Date: Monday September 26, 2022 26 b. Last Day to Amend Pleadings: Tuesday, June 28, 2022 27 c. Last Day to Disclose Expert Witnesses: Thursday, July 28, 2022 11
1 d. Last Day to file Dispositive Motions: Wednesday, October 26, 2022 2 e. Date to file the joint pretrial order: Friday, November 25, 2022 3 12. The Motion to Dismiss, Stay or Transfer the Amended Complaint [ECF 10], 4|| Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunction [ECF 18], and Motion for Leave to File a Sur- 5|| Reply [ECF 41] are fully briefed and remain pending before the Court. 6 Status of Pleadings and Motion 7|| Practice in Missouri 8 13. On April 12, 2022, Receiver initiated a lawsuit entitled “Petition Adjunct to 9|| Receivership Action in Case No. 19SL-CC05405” in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, 10|| State of Missouri as Case No. 22SL-CC02167) asserting the following claims against 11|| Hofbrauhaus America: (1) Contempt of Court Against Hofbrauhaus America for Violating the 12|| Receiver’s Order, the MCRA, and the IFDA; (2) Declaratory Judgment that Hofbrauhaus 13|| America Failed to File Claims Relating to Royalty Fees under the Franchise Agreement in the 14]| Receivership Action and Now Those Claims are Time Barred; (3) Declaratory Judgment that the Franchise Agreement was Not Lawfully Terminated; (4) Injunctive Relief preventing 16|| Hofbrauhaus America from taking any action on the Franchise Agreement to interrupt the 17|| continued use of Hofbrauhaus America’s intellectual property at the HB-Belleville Brewpub 18|| and preventing Hofbrauhaus America from maintaining any cause of action without first 19|| obtaining the approval of the Missouri State Receivership Court. 20 14. On May 13, 2022, Hofbrauhaus removed the action to federal court by filing a Notice of Removal. [Missouri ECF 1] 22 15. On May 20, 2022, Hofbrauhaus America filed a Motion to Transfer Venue 23|| and Consolidate Receiver’s Missouri Petition to Nevada Federal District Court arguing the 24|| Receiver’s claims therein are compulsory counterclaims or defenses to Hofbrauhaus 25|| America’s pending lawsuit in Nevada. [Missouri ECF 11]. 26|| /// 27\|/// ///
] 16. On June 13, 2022, the Receiver filed an Opposition to Hofbraéuhaus America’s 2|| Motion to Transfer Venue and Consolidate Receiver’s Missouri Petition to Nevada. [Missouri ECF 19] 4 17. Also on June 13, 2022, the Receiver filed a Motion to Remand. [Missouri ECF 20] 6 18. The Parties agreed to an extension of time for Hofbrauhaus America to file its Reply in Support of its Motion to Transfer and Consolidate and its Opposition to Receiver’s Motion to Remand. [Missouri ECF 25, 26, 27, 28 and 29] 9 19. With the complexity of the legal issues in this matter and the fast moving, 10|| cross-jurisdictional practice pending, both Hofbrauhaus America and the Receiver 11|| inadvertently overlooked Local Federal Rules relating to these filings in Missouri. 12|| Specifically, neither Hofbrauhaus America nor Receiver filed a Notice of Related Case in this 13]| action required by Nevada Local Rule 42-1(a) when Receiver filed the Missouri Petition.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 DISTRICT OF NEVADA HOFBRAUHAUS OF AMERICA, LLC, a_ | Case No. 2:22-cv-00421-ART-DJA Nevada limited liability company, 13 Plaintiff, 14 ORDER APPRVONG JOINT Vv. MOTION TO STAY ACTION TO 15 EXPLORE SETTLEMENT RESOLUTION OAK TREE MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., a Missouri corporation, WILLIAM 17|| GUY CROUCH, as Successor in Interest or Receiver for Oak Tree Management 18]| Services, Inc., 19 Defendants. 20 21 Plaintiff Hofbrauhaus of America, LLC (“Hofbraéuhaus America”), and Defendant 22|| William Guy Crouch, as Court-Appointed Receiver (the “Receiver”) for Oak Tree 23|| Management Services, Inc. (“Oak Tree”), by and through undersigned counsel, hereby 24|| stipulate and jointly move this Court to stay this action for eight (8) weeks while the parties 25|| explore settlement options. In support of this Stipulation, the parties respectfully state as follows: /// 28q///
1]| I. INTRODUCTION 2 The parties to this action are presently engaged in negotiations through which they see a reasonable possibility to resolve all disputes pending before this Court and those 4|| recently commenced by the Receiver in Missouri State Court, and which Hofbrauhaus 5|| America removed to the United States District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern 6|| Division, Case No. 4:22-cv-00527-AGF (the “Missouri Action”).! Given the complicated 7|| matters at issue in this case, a potential settlement includes a number of complex components that require sufficient time and effort to address. The parties submit that continuing this action and the Missouri Action during the parties’ resolution efforts would derail and distract from a 10|| viable potential settlement. 11 The parties jointly stipulate and move for the Court to enter a limited stay of eight (8) 12]| weeks in this action for the purpose of exploring resolution. This request is not made for the 13|| purposes of delay, but to reduce the burden of litigation while seeking a mutually beneficial 14]| solution. A stay would serve judicial economy and provide a fair opportunity to mitigate 15|| damages and preserve both parties’ rights. The Court has the inherent power to grant such a 16|| stay under terms the parties stipulate and the Court deems appropriate. 17 Accordingly, and for the reasons stated herein, the parties request this Court to enter 18]| an order staying this action for eight (8) weeks. ID. STATEMENT OF FACTS 20 Status of Pleadings and Motion Practice in Nevada 22 1. On or about March 7, 2022, Hofbrauhaus America filed its Complaint [ECF 1] 23|| On or about March 21, 2022, Hofbrauhaus America filed its Amended Complaint [ECF 6] 24|| asserting the following claims against the Receiver and Oak Tree: (1) Trademark Infringement 25|| per 15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq.; (ii) Trade Dress Infringement per 15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq.; (111) /// 27 The parties are simultaneously filing a similar joint motion to stay in the Missouri Action. 28
1}| Copyright Infringement per 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq.; and (iv) Declaratory Relief per NRS § 2|| 30.010 et seq. 3 2. On March 29, 2022, the Receiver filed a Motion to Dismiss, Stay or Transfer 4|| the Amended Complaint. [ECF 10] 5 3. On April 5, 2022, Hofbrauhaus America filed its Emergency Motion for 6|| Preliminary Injunction. [ECF 18] 7 4. On April 6, 2022, the Court issued a Minute Order denying Hofbrauhaus America’s Emergency Hearing Request. [ECF 21] 9 5. On April 12, 2022, Hofbrauhaus America filed its Opposition to the 10|| Receiver’s Motion to Dismiss, Stay or Transfer the Amended Complaint [ECF 22]. 11 6. On April 26, 2022, Receiver filed his Response and Opposition to 12|| Hofbrauhaus America’s Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunction. [ECF 26] 13 7. On April 27, 2022, Receiver filed his Reply in Support of his Motion to 14]| Dismiss, Stay or transfer the Amended Complaint. [ECF 27] 15 8. On May 13, 2022, Hofbrauhaus America filed its Reply in Support of its 16|| Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunction. [ECF 37] 17 9. On May 20, 2022, the Receiver filed a Motion for Leave to file a Sur-Reply to 18|| Hofbrauhaus America’s Reply in Support of its Emergency Motion for Preliminary 19]| Injunction. [ECF 41] 20 10. On June 3, 2022, Hofbrauhaus America filed an Opposition to the Receiver’s 21|| Motion for Leave to file a Sur-Reply. [ECF 44] 22 11. On May 20, 2022, the parties submitted and on May 23, 2022, the Court 23|| granted a Stipulated Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order [ECF 42] setting forth the 24|| following discovery schedule: 25 a. Discovery Cutoff Date: Monday September 26, 2022 26 b. Last Day to Amend Pleadings: Tuesday, June 28, 2022 27 c. Last Day to Disclose Expert Witnesses: Thursday, July 28, 2022 11
1 d. Last Day to file Dispositive Motions: Wednesday, October 26, 2022 2 e. Date to file the joint pretrial order: Friday, November 25, 2022 3 12. The Motion to Dismiss, Stay or Transfer the Amended Complaint [ECF 10], 4|| Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunction [ECF 18], and Motion for Leave to File a Sur- 5|| Reply [ECF 41] are fully briefed and remain pending before the Court. 6 Status of Pleadings and Motion 7|| Practice in Missouri 8 13. On April 12, 2022, Receiver initiated a lawsuit entitled “Petition Adjunct to 9|| Receivership Action in Case No. 19SL-CC05405” in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, 10|| State of Missouri as Case No. 22SL-CC02167) asserting the following claims against 11|| Hofbrauhaus America: (1) Contempt of Court Against Hofbrauhaus America for Violating the 12|| Receiver’s Order, the MCRA, and the IFDA; (2) Declaratory Judgment that Hofbrauhaus 13|| America Failed to File Claims Relating to Royalty Fees under the Franchise Agreement in the 14]| Receivership Action and Now Those Claims are Time Barred; (3) Declaratory Judgment that the Franchise Agreement was Not Lawfully Terminated; (4) Injunctive Relief preventing 16|| Hofbrauhaus America from taking any action on the Franchise Agreement to interrupt the 17|| continued use of Hofbrauhaus America’s intellectual property at the HB-Belleville Brewpub 18|| and preventing Hofbrauhaus America from maintaining any cause of action without first 19|| obtaining the approval of the Missouri State Receivership Court. 20 14. On May 13, 2022, Hofbrauhaus removed the action to federal court by filing a Notice of Removal. [Missouri ECF 1] 22 15. On May 20, 2022, Hofbrauhaus America filed a Motion to Transfer Venue 23|| and Consolidate Receiver’s Missouri Petition to Nevada Federal District Court arguing the 24|| Receiver’s claims therein are compulsory counterclaims or defenses to Hofbrauhaus 25|| America’s pending lawsuit in Nevada. [Missouri ECF 11]. 26|| /// 27\|/// ///
] 16. On June 13, 2022, the Receiver filed an Opposition to Hofbraéuhaus America’s 2|| Motion to Transfer Venue and Consolidate Receiver’s Missouri Petition to Nevada. [Missouri ECF 19] 4 17. Also on June 13, 2022, the Receiver filed a Motion to Remand. [Missouri ECF 20] 6 18. The Parties agreed to an extension of time for Hofbrauhaus America to file its Reply in Support of its Motion to Transfer and Consolidate and its Opposition to Receiver’s Motion to Remand. [Missouri ECF 25, 26, 27, 28 and 29] 9 19. With the complexity of the legal issues in this matter and the fast moving, 10|| cross-jurisdictional practice pending, both Hofbrauhaus America and the Receiver 11|| inadvertently overlooked Local Federal Rules relating to these filings in Missouri. 12|| Specifically, neither Hofbrauhaus America nor Receiver filed a Notice of Related Case in this 13]| action required by Nevada Local Rule 42-1(a) when Receiver filed the Missouri Petition. In filing its Motion to Transfer and Consolidate in the Missouri Action, Hofbrauhaus America 15]| inadvertently overlooked Nevada Local Rule 42-1(b) and Missouri Local Rule 4.03, which 16|| both provide the Motion to Transfer and Consolidate should be filed in the first filed case, 1.e., 17]| in Nevada. III. LEGAL ARGUMENT 19 [T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to 20|| control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, 21|| for counsel, and for litigants.” Trees v. Serv. Emps. Int'l Union Loc. 503, No. 6:21-CV-468-SI, 2021 WL 5829017, at *3 (D. Or. Dec. 8, 2021) (citing Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 USS. 248, 23|| 254, 57 S.Ct. 163, 81 L.Ed. 153 (1936)); see also Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1111 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting Leyva v. Certified Grocers of Cal., Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 863 (9th 25|| Cir. 1979)). 26 In exercising this discretion, the Ninth Circuit has explained that the district court 27\|| must weigh competing interests, including the possible damage which may result from the 28q///
1|| granting of a stay, the hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in being required to go 2|| forward, and the orderly course of justice measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law which could be expected to result from a stay. /d. at 1110 (quoting CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962)). Courts have acknowledged that “lengthy or indefinite” stays may create a “danger of denying justice 6|| by delay” Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Ala. v. Unity Outpatient Surgery Ctr., Inc., 490 F.3d 718, 724 (9th Cir. 2007). The “orderly course of justice” is “measured by considering 8 || whether issues will be simplified or complicated, proof, and questions of law which could be 9|| expected to result from the stay.” Lockyer, 398 F.3d at 1110 (quoting CMAX, 300 F.2d at 10|| 268). 11 In this case, the parties have agreed to stay all pending litigation while they attempt to resolve their disputes through settlement negotiation. As a result, the request is limited in time 13|| and fair to all involved. The parties’ hope is that negotiations will result in a global resolution 14|| of all matters. Such a result would serve judicial economy for all Courts in which litigation is 15|| pending between the parties. This is the parties’ first request of its kind and not made for any 16|| improper purpose, including delay. 17|| IV. STIPULATION 18 WHEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties, and the 19|| parties hereby request that this action, including all pending motions and all deadlines in the 20|| Stipulated Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order, shall be stayed for eight (8) weeks while the 21]| parties explore settlement. At the conclusion of the eight (8) week stay period, the parties shall update the Court by filing: (1) a notice of settlement or filing of a stipulation and order for dismissal; (11) a status report regarding the stay, which may include a request for additional 24|| time to continue the stay to finalize settlement; or (111) a request to resume pending matters in this action. 26 The parties acknowledge that if settlement is not reached, they are obligated to 27\| proceed immediately with discovery in this action, and so agree that upon conclusion of the 28q/// 6B
1}| eight (8) week stay, if resolution is not met, they will submit a new proposed Stipulated 2|| Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order setting forth new discovery deadlines for this case to proceed. In addition, if resolution is not met, Hofbrauhaus America will vacate its Motion to 4|| Transfer and Consolidate currently pending in the Missouri Action and will refile that motion in Nevada as required by both Nevada and Missouri’s Local Rules. Lastly, the parties will 6|| submit a stipulated briefing schedule to address Hofbrauhaus America’s Motion to Transfer 7|| and Consolidate. Dated this 30th day of June 2022. Dated this 30th day of June 2022. 9|| HONE LAw SEMENZA KIRCHER RICKARD 10 Jamie L. Zimmerman /s/ Jarrod L Ricard 1] }}Eric D. Hone, NV Bar No. 8499 Jarrod L. Rickard, Esq., NV Bar No. 10203 Jamie L. Zimmerman, NV Bar No.11749 10161 Park Run Dr.. Ste. 150 Leslie A. S. Godfrey, NV Bar No. 10229 Las Vegas, Nevada 89] 45 Kathryn C. Newman, NV Bar No. 13733 □ 701 N. Green Valley Parkway, Suite 200 Michael A. Campbell (Pro Hac Vice) 4 Henderson NV 89074 Llynn K. White (Pro Hac Vice) Nick A. Griebel (Pro Hac Vi. Attorneys for Plaintiff POLSINELLIPC (Pro Hac Vice) Hofbrauhaus of America, LLC 100 S. Fourth Street, Suite 1000 6 St. Louis, Missouri 63102 Attorneys for Defendants 17 William Guy Crouch, as Receiver for 18 Oak Tree Management Services, Inc.
19 IT IS SO ORDERED: 20 j 5 / / ) 21 pos Vowed om UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 22 3 Dated: July 1, 2022 24 25 26