Winston & Strawn LLP v. Mid-Atlantic Arena, LLC

• Court: District Court, S.D. New York
• Decided: January 28, 2021
• Docket: 1:18-cv-11430
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

WINSTON & STRAWN LLP, _ Civil Action No. 18-cv-11430-CM Plaintiff, iv 2 □ = VS. . || USDC SDNY MID-ATLANTIC ARENA, LLC and DOCUMENT ESG ENTERPRISES, INC., ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC □□ Defendants. DATE FILED: 01123126

CONSENT ORDER RE-COMMENCING ACTION ~ AND SETTING CASE SCHEDULE Plaintiff Winston & Strawn LLP (“Winston”) together with defendants Mid-Atlantic Arena, LLC (“MAA”) and ESG Enterprises, Inc. hereby stipulate and agree as follows: WHEREAS, on January 16, 2018, MAA filed an action (the “Virginia Beach Litigation”) in the Circuit Court for the City of Virginia Beach; WHEREAS, as previously reported to the Court, the parties reached an agreement in principle with respect to the above-captioned matter that would be informed by the resolution of the Virginia Beach Litigation; WHEREAS, on April 8, 2019, the Court issued an order (ECF No. 20) holding the above- captioned matter “in abeyance pending completion of trial in the Virginia Beach Litigation and the conclusion of any post-trial proceedings therein”; WHEREAS, on May 28, 2020, the Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed the April 2019 decision in the Virginia Beach Litigation in favor of the city of Virginia Beach and against MAA. See Mid-Atlantic Arena, LLC v. City of Va, Beach, No. 191020, 2020 Va. Unpub. LEXIS 16, 2020 WL 2780000 (Va. May 28, 2020);

WHEREAS, the resolution of the Virginia Beach Litigation did not resolve the issues in

the above-captioned matter; —"WTEREAS, the parties did not reach a settlement following the resolution of the Virginia Beach Litigation; WHEREAS, the Court’s order holding this matter in abeyance noted that “[d]epending on

the outcome of those proceedings, Plaintiff may either cause the New York Litigation to be

dismissed with prejudice or choose to re-commence this action”; WHEREAS, the parties now wish to re-commence the above-captioned matter; and WHEREAS, the parties, by and through their undersigned counsel, have agreed to the entry this Cour ofthis Consent Order Re-Commencing Action and Setting Case Schedule, and □□□ parties having requested that the Court enter the same, It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED as follows: 1. The above-captioned matter shall be re-commenced and discovery shall resume in

full. De The Court shall, by separate order, set a date for an Initial Pretrial Conference. 2. Defendants’ deadline to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint shall be

February 19, 2021. 4. In the event defendants file a Rule 12 motion, the deadline for Winston’s opposition shall be March 19, 2021. /t DATE: _// 24 [ oot LO iL United States District Judge

STIPULATED AND AGREED BY: /s/ George E. Mastoris Suess □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 200 Park Ave. New York, New York 10166 (212) 294-6700 Counsel for Plaintiff Winston & Strawn LLP

/s/ Adam M. Carroll M4-Careolt ——_——__> □□□ WOLCOTT RIVERS GATES 200 Bendix Road, Suite 300 Virginia Beach, Virginia 23452 (757) 497-6633 and Jonathan A. Grasso PIERCE MCCOY, PLLC 31 West 34" Street, Suite 8065 New York, New York 10001 (212) 369-8080 Counsel for the Defendants