Ciceri v. Bradford — Entry #94: ORDER granting 93 Stipulation to Extend Stay
Case: Ciceri v. Bradford nvd · 2:21-cv-01004
filed May 26, 2021
What this document is
Docket entry #94 · filed October 28, 2024
ORDER granting 93 Stipulation to Extend Stay. This case shall remain stayed through 11/22/2024. Signed by Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 10/28/2024. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MAM) (Entered: 10/28/2024)
Who is involved
- CleanSpark, Inc. [tracked: CleanSpark]
- Special Litigation Committee of CleanSpark, Inc. [tracked: CleanSpark]
- Andrea Ciceri
- Larry McNeill
- Lori L. Love
- Mark Perna
- Roger P. Bynon
- S. Matthew Schultz
- Thomas L. Wood
- Zachary K. Bradford
Why we have it
We follow this case because a company we track is a party: CleanSpark (listed as “CleanSpark, Inc.”, “Special Litigation Committee of CleanSpark, Inc.”). We checked the full party list on September 28, 2026 and confirmed the match.
A free copy from the RECAP archive of federal court filings (mirrored at the Internet Archive), retrieved October 27, 2026. Federal court filings are public records.
Document text
3 page(s), 4,024 characters, converted from the PDF's text layer · plain text.
Full text
Case 2:21-cv-01004-GMN-BNW Document 94 Filed 10/28/24 Page 1 of 3
1 HOWARD & HOWARD ATTORNEYS PLLC
Robert Hernquist, Nevada Bar No. 10616
2 James Kohl, Nevada Bar No. 5692
rwh@h2law.com
3 Wells Fargo Tower, Suite 1000
4 3800 Howard Hughes Parkway
Las Vegas, Nevada 89169-5980
5 Telephone: (702) 257-1483
Facsimile: (702) 567-1568
6
KAPLAN RICE LLP
7
Howard J. Kaplan, Admitted Pro Hac Vice
8 Michelle A. Rice, Admitted Pro Hac Vice
142 W. 57th Street, Suite 4A
9 New York, New York 10019
hkaplan@kaplanrice.com
10 mrice@kaplanrice.com
Attorneys for Intervenor Special Litigation
11
Committee of CleanSpark, Inc.
12
13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
14 DISTRICT OF NEVADA
15
IN RE CLEANSPARK, INC. Case No. 2:21-cv-01004-GMN-BNW
16 DERIVATIVE LITIGATION,
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO
17 This Document Relates to: EXTEND STAY
18
ALL ACTIONS
19
20 The Intervenor Special Litigation Committee of CleanSpark, Inc. (“SLC”), Plaintiffs
21 Andrea Ciceri and Mark Perna (“Plaintiffs”) and Defendants Zachary K. Bradford, Lori L. Love,
22 S. Matthew Schultz, Larry McNeill, Thomas L. Wood, Roger P. Beynon, and Nominal Defendant
23 CleanSpark (“Defendants”, and collectively with Plaintiffs, the “Parties”) in this matter, by and
24 through their respective undersigned counsel, hereby enter into the following stipulation and
25 proposed order:
26 WHEREAS, on October 9, 2023, the SLC moved to intervene in the above-captioned
27 consolidated federal derivative action and moved to stay the action pending the completion of the
28 SLC investigation. (ECF 75 & 76).
1
Case 2:21-cv-01004-GMN-BNW Document 94 Filed 10/28/24 Page 2 of 3
1 WHEREAS, on October 23, 2023, this Court granted SLC’s motions to intervene and stay
2 the above-captioned consolidated federal derivative action. (ECF 79).
3 WHEREAS, on September 18, 2024, this Court ordered that the parties shall have until
4 October 16, 2024 to file a motion or stipulation addressing whether the stay should be lifted.
5 (ECF 91).
6 WHEREAS, on October 16, 2024, the SLC filed its Motion To Defer To The Special
7 Litigation Committee’s Determination That The Claims Should Be Dismissed (“Motion to
8 Defer”) and further moved to have the stay extended until the Court determines its Motion to
9 Defer. (ECF 92). The current deadline for any responses to that motion is October 30, 2024.
10 WHEREAS, the parties are currently in the process of negotiating the terms of a stipulated
11 protective order regarding the SLC’s Report and exhibits referenced therein and the parties intend
12 to meet and confer concerning a protocol for further proceedings in this matter and whether a
13 further stay is appropriate.
14 IT IS SO AGREED AND STIPULATED, by the Parties hereto, through their
15 undersigned counsel, subject to the approval of the Court as follows:
16 1. The stay be extended up to and including November 22, 2024.
17 2. Prior to November 22, 2024, the Parties will submit a status update to the Court,
18 and if appropriate a proposed schedule for further proceedings.
19 3. That Plaintiffs’ current response deadline to the SLC’s Motion to Defer is hereby
20 vacated and that the Parties will instead met and confer and then submit a proposed briefing
21 schedule to the Court.
22 ///
23 ///
24 ///
25 ///
26 ///
27 ///
28
2
Case 2:21-cv-01004-GMN-BNW Document 94 Filed 10/28/24 Page 3 of 3
