Rich Media Club et al v. Mentchoukov et al, No. 2:2011cv01202 - Document 192 (D. Utah 2012)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION and ORDER denying 177 Plaintiffs' Motion for Extension of Time. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells on 07/09/2012. (tls)
Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION RICH MEDIA CLUB, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, and RICH MEDIA WORLDWIDE, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME Case No. 2:11-cv-1202 Plaintiffs, v. District Judge Ted Stewart NIKOLAI MENTCHOUKOV, JAMES W. ROWAN, and LEFTSNRIGHTS, INC., a Delaware corporation, dba LIQWID, and JOHN DOES 1 25, Defendants. Magistrate Judge Brooke Wells This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs Rich Media Club, LLC and Rich Media Worldwide, LLC Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Defendants Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint. 1 Defendants filed an opposition to the instant motion on June 20, 2012, and although unnecessary, as of the date of this decision Plaintiffs have elected to not file a reply. As set forth below the Court DENIES the motion. BACKGROUND Plaintiffs commenced this lawsuit on December 23, 2011. Shortly thereafter the parties engaged in expedited discovery. On April 3, 2012, Judge Stewart entered a Memorandum Decision and Order granting in part Defendants first Motion to Dismiss.2 A month later on May 3, 2012, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint. 3 Subsequently on May 17, 2012, Defendants moved to dismiss six of Plaintiffs eight newly asserted claims and to once again dismiss 1 Docket no. 177. 2 Memorandum Decision and Order dated April 3, 2012, docket no. 115. 3 Docket no. 140. Defendant Rowan from this lawsuit. 4 Five days later on May 22, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking to dismiss their own Amended Complaint for lack of jurisdiction. 5 Plaintiffs filed the instant motion for an extension of time approximately a month later on the same day their opposition was due to Defendants Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint. DISCUSSION Plaintiffs ask this Court for an enlargement of time to respond to Defendants Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint. Specifically, Plaintiffs seek an extension of ten days after the Court rules on Plaintiffs Motion to Dismiss their own Amended Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 6 In that motion Plaintiffs seek to dismiss their Amended Complaint and refile it in the appropriate state court, or have the matter referred to arbitration. 7 Plaintiffs assert an extension is warranted because otherwise they will have to continue to expend needless resources on a matter that is likely to be refilled in state court. 8 Defendants oppose Plaintiffs request for an extension of time. Defendants argue that [i]n short, Plaintiffs would like this Court to rule on the Motions and proceedings that are in Plaintiffs interests while they are excused from even responding to Motions that Defendants have brought. 9 Thus, what Plaintiffs seek is to have their Motion to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction heard before the Court renders a decision on Defendants Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint on the merits. 4 Docket no. 148. 5 Docket no. 155. 6 Docket no. 155. 7 Motion p. 2. 8 Id. 9 Op. p. 5. 2 The Court agrees with Defendants arguments. There is no justifiable reason in this case and at this time that the Court should favor one party s motions over another. Indeed, Plaintiffs cited reason of cost savings could apply equally to Defendants cost savings of not having to defend this action again in state court should they prevail on their pending motion to dismiss Plaintiffs Amended Complaint on the merits. ORDER Accordingly, Plaintiffs Motion for an Extension of Time to Respond to Defendants Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint 10 is HEREBY DENIED. Plaintiffs are to file any opposition to Defendants motion to dismiss within 7 days from the date of this decision. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 9 July 2012. Brooke C. Wells United States Magistrate Judge 10 Docket no. 177. 3