Luxx International, LLC v. Pure Water Technologies

Opinion

Dustun H. Holmes, Esq., Bar No. 12776 DHH@mcmenemyholmes.com Ian M. McMenemy, Esq., Bar No. 13190 IAN@mcmenemyholmes.com MCMENEMY | HOLMES PLLC 1645 Village Center Circle, Suite 291 Las Vegas, Nevada 89134 Telephone: 702.874.4878 Facsimile: 702.874.4969 Attorneys for Tasty One, LLC LUXX INTERNATIONAL, LLC, a Florida Case No.: 2:23-cv-00512-MMD-DJA limited liability company; and WAYDE KING, an individual, Plaintiffs, STIPULATION AND ORDER TO STAY PENDING MEDIATION v. PURE WATER TECHNOLOGIES, a Nevada limited liability company; TASTY ONE, LLC, a foreign limited liability company; MICHAEL KAPLAN, an individual; and ADAM KAPLAN, an individual. Defendants. Plaintiffs, Luxx International, LLC and Wayde King, ("Plaintiffs") and Defendants, Pure Water Technologies, Tasty One, LLC, Michael Kaplan, and Adam Kaplan, (“Defendants” together with Plaintiff, the "Parties" and, individually, a "Party"), by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate and agree, subject to the Court’s approval, to the following: 1. The Parties conducted a Rule 26(f) conference in this matter on June 26, 2023 and on July 12, 2023. 2. In the Joint Discovery Plan the Parties represented to the Court that while the Parties have preliminary discussed ADR, including mediation and arbitration, no early mediation or arbitration has been agreed to or scheduled at this time. However, the Parties represented they would be agreeable to mediation or arbitration at a more advanced stage in the litigation. ECF No. 26. 3. Since commencing discovery, the Parties have exchanged numerous disclosures, written discovery, engaged in motion practice, and met and conferred on discovery issues. No depositions have been taken. Yet, the Parties have conducted sufficient discovery to assess potential mediation or settlement conference. 4. Recently, the Parties through their respective counsel, met and conferred and agreed that a Court settlement conference would be beneficial at this time. 5. Because the Parties anticipate incurring substantial costs associated with discovery efforts between now and when a settlement conference could be scheduled, the Parties agreed to file a stipulation with the Court requesting a stay of the current scheduling order deadlines pending disposition of a settlement conference and simultaneously promptly make any appropriate filing with the Court to jointly request and schedule a settlement conference. 6. Through either stipulation or motion, the Court has granted three request to extent the scheduling order deadlines. 7. On May 28, 2024, the Court entered an order setting forth the following current scheduling order deadlines: Initial expert disclosures: July 5, 2024 Rebuttal expert disclosures: August 5, 2024 Discovery deadline: September 3, 2024 Dispositive motions: October 7, 2024 Joint pretrial order: November 4, 2024 8. The Parties in good faith believe that deferring until after a settlement conference, if necessary, the substantial costs and fees that will be incurred as it relates to discovery efforts prior to a settlement conference, will give the parties the best possible chance of resolving their dispute at a settlement conference. 9. Accordingly, the Parties stipulate subject to the Court’s approval to stay discovery any appropriate filing with the Court to jointly request and schedule a settlement conference. The parties further agree that the stay of discovery would begin on submission of the joint request for a settlement conference and the stay would end if: 1) the court denies the request for a settlement conference, or 2) if the settlement conference is held and one of the parties notifies the Court that the settlement was unsuccessful. Discovery will resume and the scheduling order deadlines will be extended for the amount of time upon the Court’s entry of this order staying discovery and notification that the settlement conference was unsuccessful. 10. If the settlement conference is successful, the parties will make any appropriate filings with the Court. … … … 11. This stipulation is not being sought for purposes of delay, but rather to provide th Parties with the best chance to resolve their dispute at a settlement conference. DATED this 28th day of June, 2024. DATED this 28th day of June, 2024. MCMENEMY HOLMES PLLC LEWIS ROCA ROTHGERBER CHRISTIE LLP By: __/s/ Dustun H. Holmes By: ___/s/ Eric N. Kohli Dustun H. Holmes, Bar #12776 Eric N. Kohli, Bar #15763 1645 Village Center Circle, Suite 291 John E. Bragonje, Bar #9519 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 3993 Howard Hughes, Suite 600 Las Vegas, Nevada 89169 Attorneys for Defendant Tasty One, LLC Attorneys for Plaintiff Luxx International, LLC and Wayde King DATED this 28th day of June, 2024. DATED this 28th day of June, 2024. MARC RISMAN LAW OFFICES MAIER GUTIERREZ & ASSOCIATES By: ___/s/ Marc D. Risman By: ___/s/ Jean-Paul Hendricks _ Marc D. Risman, Bar #2455 Joseph A. Gutierrez, Bar #9046 3722 Las Vegas Boulevard, Suite 606 Jean-Paul Hendricks, Bar #10079 Las Vegas, Nevada 89158 8816 Spanish Ridge Avenue Las Vegas, Nevada 89148 Attorneys for Defendant Pure Water Technologies, LLC Attorneys for Defendant Michael Kaplan and Adam Kaplan Having reviewed the parties’ stipulation, the Court finds that they have demonstrated good 99 cause to stay discovery pending the outcome of their requested settlement conference. See Gibson v. MGM International, No. 2:23-cv-00140-MMD-DJA, 2023 WL 4455726 (D. Nev. July 11, 2023). IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the parties’ stipulation (ECF No. 68) is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, if settlement is unsuccessful, the parties must file a 94 stipulation regarding discovery deadlines within TWENTY-ONE DAYS of the unsuccessful settlement. = pS DANIEL J. ALBREGTS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DATED: July 1, 2024