{"cached_at":"2026-10-27T09:47:22.476307+00:00","cl_docket_id":"67134325","docket":{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67134325/","id":67134325,"court":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/courts/nvd/","court_id":"nvd","original_court_info":null,"idb_data":null,"clusters":[],"audio_files":[],"assigned_to":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/people/901/","referred_to":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/people/9410/","bankruptcy_information":null,"absolute_url":"/docket/67134325/iraci-v-bradford/","date_created":"2023-04-04T13:18:13.733098-07:00","date_modified":"2025-05-13T13:23:05.554091-07:00","source":1,"appeal_from_str":"","assigned_to_str":"Jennifer A. Dorsey","referred_to_str":"Nancy J. Koppe","panel_str":"","date_last_index":"2023-04-09T05:04:00.155023-07:00","date_cert_granted":null,"date_cert_denied":null,"date_argued":null,"date_reargued":null,"date_reargument_denied":null,"date_filed":"2023-02-28","date_terminated":"2023-06-07","date_last_filing":"2023-06-09","case_name_short":"Iraci","case_name":"Iraci v. Bradford","case_name_full":"","slug":"iraci-v-bradford","docket_number":"2:23-cv-00315","docket_number_core":"2300315","docket_number_raw":"2:23-cv-00315","docket_number_source":0,"federal_dn_office_code":"2","federal_dn_case_type":"cv","federal_dn_judge_initials_assigned":"JAD","federal_dn_judge_initials_referred":"NJK","federal_defendant_number":null,"pacer_case_id":"160997","cause":"28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Fiduciary Duty","nature_of_suit":"Stockholders Suits","jury_demand":"","jurisdiction_type":"","appellate_fee_status":"","appellate_case_type_information":"","mdl_status":"","filepath_ia":"","filepath_ia_json":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"ia_needs_upload":true,"ia_date_first_change":"2023-04-04T13:18:13.730127-07:00","date_blocked":null,"blocked":false,"appeal_from":null,"parent_docket":null,"tags":[],"panel":[]},"parties":[],"entries":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/346329887/","id":346329887,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67134325/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/352700938/","id":352700938,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/67134325/46/iraci-v-bradford/","date_created":"2023-06-12T13:22:04.826038-07:00","date_modified":"2024-11-22T02:22:05.665830-08:00","sha1":"1bea6f7d721a522e73733da6517862880bffb2ee","page_count":7,"file_size":178924,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.nvd.160997/gov.uscourts.nvd.160997.46.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":3,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"            Case 2:23-cv-00315-JAD-NJK           Document 46        Filed 06/07/23      Page 1 of 7\n\n\n\n\n 1                                UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n\n 2                                        DISTRICT OF NEVADA\n\n 3 Nicholas Iraci, derivatively on behalf of                   Case No.: 2:23-cv-0315-JAD-NJK\n   Cleanspark, Inc.,\n 4\n          Plaintiff                                      Order Granting Motion to Remand Case to\n 5 v.                                                      State Court and Denying Remaining\n                                                                     Motions as Moot\n 6 Zachary K. Bradford, et al.,\n                                                                    [ECF Nos. 15, 16, 35, 38]\n 7             Defendants\n\n 8            This is one of several shareholder-derivative actions in this district brought on behalf of\n\n 9 bitcoin-mining company CleanSpark, Inc. against its officers and directors for alleged breaches\n\n10 of their fiduciary duties. Though shareholder plaintiff Nicholas Iraci filed this suit in Nevada\n\n11 state court against forum and non-forum defendants, one of the individual defendants removed it\n\n12 to federal court before anyone had been served with process and despite the presence of a forum\n\n13 defendant whose existence should have precluded removal. The propriety of this practice\u2014\n\n14 termed \u201csnap removal\u201d\u2014is an issue that has divided the courts. The plaintiff challenges this\n\n15 practice in his motion for remand. Because I find that the removal here was improper, I grant his\n\n16 motion and remand this case back to state court.\n\n17                                                  Analysis\n\n18 I.         Snap removal was improper under 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1441(b)(2).\n\n19            28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1441(a) authorizes defendants to remove to federal court \u201cany civil action\n\n20 brought in a [s]tate court of which the [U.S. District Courts] have original jurisdiction.\u201d But\n\n21 \u201c[f]ederal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.\u201d 1 So defendants seeking removal jurisdiction\n\n22\n\n23\n     1\n         Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994).\n\f               Case 2:23-cv-00315-JAD-NJK         Document 46        Filed 06/07/23     Page 2 of 7\n\n\n\n\n 1 \u201calways have the burden of establishing that removal is proper.\u201d 2 This is a heavy burden to carry\n\n 2 because there is a \u201cstrong presumption against removal jurisdiction[,]\u201d the removal statute is\n\n 3 \u201cstrictly construe[d] against removal jurisdiction[,]\u201d and \u201c[f]ederal jurisdiction must be rejected\n\n 4 if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.\u201d 3\n\n 5              A limitation on diversity-based removal jurisdiction is the forum-defendant rule.\n\n 6 Codified at 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1441(b)(2), the forum-defendant rule provides that \u201c[a] civil action\n\n 7 otherwise removable solely on the basis of [diversity jurisdiction] may not be removed if any of\n\n 8 the parties in interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the State in which\n\n 9 such action is brought.\u201d 4 In this case, Defendant CleanSpark is such a forum defendant, 5 but\n\n10 Defendant S. Matthew Schultz removed this case on diversity-jurisdiction grounds before any\n\n11 defendant\u2014including himself\u2014had been served with process. 6 The plaintiff moves for remand,\n\n12 arguing that this snap-removal practice violates the forum-defendant rule.\n\n13              The defendants respond that snap removal is a permissible practice and a valid means to\n\n14 avoid the forum-defendant rule. They point out that one of the judges in this district and\n\n15 numerous other circuit courts have held that the plain language of \u00a7 1441(b)(2) is unambiguous\n\n16 and permits snap removal. 7 For his part, the plaintiff contends that the interpretation that the\n\n17 defendants and their authorities offer cuts against the statute\u2019s language and purpose of\n\n18\n     2\n         Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992).\n19\n     3\n         Id.\n20 4 Lively v. Wild Oats Mkts., Inc., 456 F.3d 933, 939 (9th Cir. 2006) (noting that the rule is a\n   \u201cprocedural, or non-jurisdictional,\u201d one).\n21 5\n     ECF No. 16.\n22 6 ECF No. 1 at 3, \u00b6 8 (removal petition).\n     7\n      ECF No. 30 at 8\u201311 (citing, e.g., Texas Brine Co., LLC v. Am. Arb. Ass\u2019n, 955 F.3d 482 (5th\n23\n     Cir. 2020); Gibbons v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 919 F.3d 699 (2d Cir. 2019); Encompass Ins.\n     Co. v. Stone Mansion Rest., Inc., 902 F.3d 147 (3d Cir. 2018)).\n\n                                                        2\n\f               Case 2:23-cv-00315-JAD-NJK          Document 46        Filed 06/07/23      Page 3 of 7\n\n\n\n\n 1 preserving the plaintiff\u2019s choice of a state forum when at least one defendant is a citizen of that\n\n 2 state. 8 He adds that each of the authorities that the defendants cite is materially distinguishable\n\n 3 and that nearly all judges in this district have overwhelmingly rebuffed similar snap-removal\n\n 4 tactics. 9\n\n 5              When interpreting federal statutes, \u201cthe starting point in discerning congressional intent is\n\n 6 the existing statutory text.\u201d 10 \u201cIt is well established that when the statute\u2019s language is plain, the\n\n 7 sole function of the courts\u2014at least where the disposition required by the text is not absurd\u2014is\n\n 8 to enforce it according to its terms.\u201d 11 Courts are required to \u201cpresume that the legislature says\n\n 9 in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says there.\u201d 12\n\n10              The appellate courts that have determined that \u00a7 1441(b)(2)\u2019s \u201cplain language allows\n\n11 snap removal\u201d before any defendant has been served did so by focusing on the \u201cproperly joined\n\n12 and served\u201d phrase in the statute. 13 But not all courts agree with that interpretation. The\n\n13 \u201c[d]istrict courts are split as to whether snap removals are appropriate,\u201d and \u201c[t]here is ongoing\n\n14 debate on whether there is a trend in favor or against\u201d the practice. 14 Heavily cited in the\n\n15\n\n16 8 ECF No. 33.\n     9\n         Id.\n17\n     10\n          Lamie v. U.S. Tr., 540 U.S. 526, 534 (2004).\n18 11 Id. (quoting Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Union Planters Bank, N.A., 530 U.S. 1, 6\n   (2000)) (internal quotation marks omitted).\n19 12\n      Bedroc Ltd. v. United States, 541 U.S. 176, 183 (2004) (cleaned up).\n20 13 Texas Brine Co., 955 F.3d at 486; accord Gibbons, 919 F.3d at 705 (\u201cThe statute plainly\n   provides that an action may not be removed to federal court on the basis of diversity of\n21 citizenship once a home-state defendant has been \u201cproperly joined and served.\u201d); Encompass Ins.\n   Co., 902 F.3d at 152 (finding that the plain language of \u00a7 1441(b)(2) unambiguously \u201cprecludes\n22 removal on the basis of in-state citizenship only when the defendant has been properly joined\n   and served\u201d).\n23 14\n      Spreitzer Props., LLC v. Travelers Corp., 599 F. Supp.3d 774, 782 & n.3 (N.D. Iowa 2022)\n   (collecting cases).\n\n                                                          3\n\f            Case 2:23-cv-00315-JAD-NJK              Document 46        Filed 06/07/23      Page 4 of 7\n\n\n\n\n 1 against-snap-removal camp is U.S. District Judge Woodlock\u2019s decision in Gentile v. Biogen Idec,\n\n 2 Inc., concluding that \u201cthe plain language of section 1441(b) requires at least one defendant to\n\n 3 have been served before removal can be effected.\u201d 15 Judge Woodlock reached that conclusion\n\n 4 by grammatically parsing the statute in its current and historical forms. 16 The statute now\n\n 5 precludes removal \u201c\u2018if any of the parties in interest properly joined and served as defendants\u2019 is a\n\n 6 forum defendant.\u201d 17 \u201c\u2018Any[]\u2019 . . . means \u2018one or more indiscriminately from all those of a\n\n 7 kind[,]\u2019\u201d 18 and \u201c[i]nherent in the definition is some number of the \u2018kind\u2019 from which the \u2018one or\n\n 8 more\u2019 can be drawn.\u201d 19 \u201cThus the lack of a party properly joined and served . . . means that . . .\n\n 9 [a] basic assumption embedded in the statute\u2014that a party in interest had been served prior to\n\n10 removal\u2014has not been met.\u201d 20 This interpretation bars snap removals.\n\n11              The defendants insist that Gentile should be rejected in favor of the circuit rulings that\n\n12 approve of this tactic. 21 But after carefully considering the parties\u2019 authorities, I agree with the\n\n13 vast majority of the judges in this district that Judge Woodlock\u2019s interpretation in Gentile \u201cis the\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19 15 Gentile v. Biogen Idec, Inc., 934 F. Supp. 2d 313, 316, 318\u201319 (D. Mass. 2013) (quoting 28\n   U.S.C. \u00a7 1441(b) (2002)).\n20 16 Id. at 316 n.2, 318.\n     17\n21        Id. at 318.\n     18\n          Id. (quoting Webster\u2019s Third New Int\u2019l Dictionary 1536 (3d. ed. 1986)).\n22 19\n          Id.\n23 20 Id.\n     21\n          ECF No. 30 at 8\u20139.\n\n                                                          4\n\f            Case 2:23-cv-00315-JAD-NJK            Document 46       Filed 06/07/23     Page 5 of 7\n\n\n\n\n 1 most cogent.\u201d 22 Not only does it make grammatical sense, it is the interpretation most true to\n\n 2 other canons of construction, the statute\u2019s purpose, and legislative intent. 23\n\n 3             As Judge Woodlock reasoned, \u201c[t]he removal power, and by extension the forum[-]\n\n 4 defendant rule, is founded on the basic premise behind diversity jurisdiction itself\u201d\u2014\n\n 5 \u201cprotect[ing] non-forum litigants from possible state[-]court bias in favor of forum-state\n\n 6 litigants.\u201d 24 But forum defendants do not suffer this bias and therefore do not need protection\n\n 7 from it. And the presence of a forum defendant presumably mitigates concerns of state-court\n\n 8 bias toward the plaintiff. So the forum-defendant \u201crule provides some measure of protection for\n\n 9 a plaintiff\u2019s choice of forum\u201d in certain circumstances. 25 \u201c[W]hen the overarching concerns\n\n10 about local bias against the defendant\u201d are absent, the rule allows \u201ca plaintiff to move for a\n\n11 remand of the case to the state court.\u201d 26\n\n12             Courts agree that \u00a7 1441(b)\u2019s legislative history does not explain why \u201cproperly joined\n\n13 and served\u201d was added to the statute. 27 \u201cSupreme Court jurisprudence at the time of the 1948\n\n14\n   22\n      Deutsche Bank Nat\u2019l Tr. Co. v. Fidelity Nat\u2019l Title Grp., Inc., 2020 WL 7360680, at *3 (D.\n15 Nev. Dec. 14, 2020); accord Deutsche Bank Nat\u2019l Tr. Co. v. Old Republic Title Ins. Grp., Inc.,\n   532 F. Supp. 3d 1004, 1013 (D. Nev. 2021) (lauding Gentile as \u201c[o]ne of the most clear and\n16 influential explanations of this view\u201d); Carrington Mortg. Servs., LLC v. Ticor Title Nevada,\n   Inc., 2020 WL 3892786, at *3 (D. Nev. July 10, 2020); see also ECF No. 16 at 2 n.2 (collecting\n17 cases).\n     23\n18    See Moran v. Screening Pros, LLC, 943 F.3d 1175, 1183 (9th Cir. 2019) (\u201cIf the language is\n   ambiguous, we look to canons of construction, legislative history, and the statute\u2019s overall\n19 purpose to illuminate Congress\u2019s intent.\u201d (internal quotation marks omitted)). To the extent that\n   the Ninth Circuit\u2019s affirmance of this holding would create a circuit split, these are \u201ccompelling\n20 reason[s]\u201d to do so. See Kelton Arms Condo. Owners Ass\u2019n, 346 F.3d 1190, 1192 (9th Cir. 2003)\n   (cited at ECF No. 16 at 10).\n21 24 Gentile, 934 F. Supp. 2d at 319 (diving into the removal statute\u2019s history and purpose \u201cfor\n   completeness of [Judge Woodlock\u2019s] explanation\u201d); accord Lively, 456 F.3d at 940.\n22 25\n      Gentile, 934 F. Supp. 2d at 319.\n23 26 Id.\n     27\n          See, e.g., id. at 319\u201320; Encompass Ins. Co., 902 F.3d at 153.\n\n                                                        5\n\f            Case 2:23-cv-00315-JAD-NJK            Document 46       Filed 06/07/23      Page 6 of 7\n\n\n\n\n 1 revision . . . suggests\u201d 28 that this language was added to prevent the gamesmanship of a plaintiff\n\n 2 \u201cblocking removal by joining as a defendant a resident party against whom it does not intend to\n\n 3 proceed, and whom it does not even serve.\u201d 29 But with the advent of electronic dockets,\n\n 4 sophisticated, monied, or hyper-vigilant defendants are monitoring court filings and removing\n\n 5 before any defendant has been served, with the goal of eluding the forum-defendant rule.\n\n 6 Congress would not have intended to prevent plaintiffs\u2019 removal-defeating games by creating a\n\n 7 means for defendants to leapfrog over the forum-defendant rule.\n\n 8             The removal statute\u2019s purpose is better fostered by precluding removal until at least one\n\n 9 defendant has been served. That way, \u201cplaintiffs legitimately seeking to join a forum defendant\n\n10 face the modest burden of serving that defendant before any others.\u201d 30 A plaintiff who \u201cserves a\n\n11 non-forum defendant before serving a forum\u201d one \u201chas effectively chosen to waive an objection\n\n12 to removal by a nimble non-forum defendant who thereafter removes the case\u201d before it can be\n\n13 served. 31 And the non-forum defendant can still argue that the forum defendant was fraudulently\n\n14 joined. 32 This interpretation is faithful to the removal statute\u2019s entire purpose and consistent\n\n15 with its plain language, so I adopt it. Applying this interpretation, I conclude that removal of this\n\n16 action was premature because it occurred before any defendant had been served. So I remand\n\n17 this case back to the state court.\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n     28\n21        Gentile, 934 F. Supp. 2d at 319\u201320.\n     29\n          Stan Winston Creatures, Inc. v. Toys \u201cR\u201d Us, Inc., 314 F. Supp. 2d 177, 181 (S.D.N.Y. 2003).\n22 30\n          Gentile, 934 F. Supp. 2d at 322.\n23 31 Id.\n     32\n          Id. at 322\u201323.\n\n                                                        6\n\f            Case 2:23-cv-00315-JAD-NJK            Document 46        Filed 06/07/23    Page 7 of 7\n\n\n\n\n 1              B.     The court declines to award fees for this improper removal.\n\n 2              The plaintiff notes that 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1447(c) gives a remanding judge wide discretion to\n\n 3 award fees and costs to the party who sought and won remand, and he asks me to do so here. 33\n\n 4 He reasons that my prior orders on similar snap removals \u201cshould have made it clear how\u201d I\n\n 5 would rule on this motion, making the defendants\u2019 refusal to stipulate to remand unreasonable. 34\n\n 6 But, as the briefing on this motion illuminates, the propriety of snap removal is a question that\n\n 7 has divided courts and has not yet been resolved by the Ninth Circuit. Because the divergent\n\n 8 approaches to this issue gave the defendants an objectively reasonable basis to take a shot at\n\n 9 removal, and also at persuading me to change my views through motion practice, I decline the\n\n10 plaintiff\u2019s request for an award of fees and costs. 35\n\n11                                                 Conclusion\n\n12              IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion to remand [ECF No. 16] is GRANTED.\n\n13 The Clerk of Court is directed to REMAND this action back to the Eighth Judicial District\n\n14 Court for Clark County, Nevada, Department 19, Case No. A-23-866172-C, and CLOSE\n\n15 THIS CASE.\n\n16              IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all other motions [ECF Nos. 15, 35, 38] are DENIED\n\n17 as moot and without prejudice to their refiling in state court.\n\n18                                                                 _______________________________\n                                                                   U.S. District Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey\n19                                                                                           June 7, 2023\n\n20 33\n     ECF No. 16 at 15; see also Gotro v. R & B Realty Grp., 69 F.3d 1485, 1487 (9th Cir. 1995)\n21 (quoting Moore v. Permanente Med. Grp., Inc., 981 F.2d 443, 446 (9th Cir. 1992)).\n     34\n          Id.\n22 35\n      The plaintiff\u2019s failure to demonstrate the actual expenses that he incurred or what costs would\n   be just in this situation give this court an additional, independent basis to deny this request. See\n23\n   L.R. 54-14 (describing the information that such a motion \u201cmust include\u201d and explaining that the\n   failure to include that information \u201cmay be deemed a consent to the denial of the motion\u201d).\n\n                                                        7\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2024-11-19T06:14:58.112670-08:00","document_number":"46","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"11509998792","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":true,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order AND Order on Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages AND Order on Motion to Consolidate Cases AND Order on Motion to Dismiss AND Order on Motion to Remand to State Court","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2023-06-12T13:22:04.817267-07:00","date_modified":"2024-11-19T06:14:56.252452-08:00","date_filed":"2023-06-07","time_filed":"12:49:18","entry_number":46,"recap_sequence_number":"2023-06-12.001","pacer_sequence_number":160,"description":"  ORDER denying  35   Motion to Dismiss.  ORDER denying  38   Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages and  ORDER denying  15  Motion to Consolidate Cases.  ORDER granting  16   Motion to Remand to State Court. Case CLOSED.     Signed by Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey on 6/7/2023.   (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - cc: Certified docket sheet and Order sent to State Court on the docket - CAH).","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/338521257/","id":338521257,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67134325/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/344834356/","id":344834356,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/67134325/43/iraci-v-bradford/","date_created":"2023-05-30T13:18:36.559106-07:00","date_modified":"2023-05-30T13:18:36.561091-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"43","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"11509981162","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order on Motion to Stay Case","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2023-05-30T13:18:36.552893-07:00","date_modified":"2023-05-30T13:18:36.555237-07:00","date_filed":"2023-05-30","time_filed":"12:59:34","entry_number":43,"recap_sequence_number":"2023-05-30.001","pacer_sequence_number":153,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/338521255/","id":338521255,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67134325/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/344834354/","id":344834354,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/67134325/44/iraci-v-bradford/","date_created":"2023-05-30T13:18:36.470178-07:00","date_modified":"2024-11-19T06:06:24.301672-08:00","sha1":"4d645b5d9c2e7e77e1a13bec5bc94778f4a9a714","page_count":1,"file_size":134749,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.nvd.160997/gov.uscourts.nvd.160997.44.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nvd.160997/gov.uscourts.nvd.160997.44.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"0 \u00a9 YN DOD WwW B&B WwW HY\n\nNO wo NN WN NY NO NN NO HNO ee eRe RFE FEO OOOO\noOo YD WO Wn ff W NO KF OC OO WO NHN WD Nr Sf WW NY KF OS\n\nCase 2:23-cv-00315-JAD-NJK Document 44 Filed 05/30/23 Page 1 of 1\n\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n\nDISTRICT OF NEVADA\nNICHOLAS IRACI, Case No. 2:23-cv-00315-JAD-NJK\nPlaintiff, ORDER\nV. [Docket No. 42]\n\nZACHARY K. BRADFORD, et al.,\nDefendants.\n\nPending before the Court is the parties\u2019 proposed discovery plan. Docket No. 42. The\npresumptively reasonable discovery period is 180 days. Local Rule 26-1(b)(1). Here, however,\nthe parties seek a 345-day discovery period based on the parties\u2019 need to retain multiple experts,\nconduct multiple depositions, and to allow time for counsel to travel. Docket No. 42 at 2-3. When\na specific showing has been made that established deadlines cannot be met in a particular\ncircumstance, the Court has found good cause for extension. The instant request makes no specific\nshowing at all and, instead, relies on generalized assertions that can be made about all litigation.\n\nAccordingly, the proposed discovery plan is DENIED without prejudice. Docket No. 42.\nAn amended discovery plan must be filed by June 9, 2023. To the extent special scheduling review\nis sought therein, a specific showing must be made as to why the presumptively reasonable\ndeadlines should not apply based on the particular circumstances of this case. Otherwise, the\nparties must include the default deadlines, properly calculated from the date of Defendants\u2019 answer\nor first appearance.\n\nIT IS SO ORDERED.\n\nDated: May 30, 2023\n\nNancy I\\Koppe\nUnited\u2019 States Magistrate Judge\n\n","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2023-05-31T01:28:28.372840-07:00","document_number":"44","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"11509981177","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":true,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order AND Order on Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2023-05-30T13:18:36.459226-07:00","date_modified":"2024-11-19T06:06:24.294643-08:00","date_filed":"2023-05-30","time_filed":"13:01:16","entry_number":44,"recap_sequence_number":"2023-05-30.001","pacer_sequence_number":155,"description":"  ORDER Denying without prejudice  42   Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order.  Amended   Discovery Plan/Scheduling Order due by 6/9/2023.  Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 5/30/2023.   (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JQC)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/331519397/","id":331519397,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67134325/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/337792820/","id":337792820,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/67134325/39/iraci-v-bradford/","date_created":"2023-05-19T10:11:32.776885-07:00","date_modified":"2024-11-19T05:58:02.388991-08:00","sha1":"a1ea09c3244270b14e3cef259eaacdbeaea71a73","page_count":1,"file_size":69117,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.nvd.160997/gov.uscourts.nvd.160997.39.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nvd.160997/gov.uscourts.nvd.160997.39.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"So WO JN WO WN ff WW NY _\n\nBo NO NO HN BH KN KN KN Rw me tt tet\noo JN WD WN f& W NY KF CO YO WO NN DO UN f& W NY KF OS\n\nCase 2:23-cv-00315-JAD-NJK Document 39 Filed 05/19/23 Page 1 of 1\n\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\nDISTRICT OF NEVADA\n\nNICHOLAS IRACI,\nPlaintiff,\n\nCase No. 2:23-cv-003 15-JAD-NJK\n\nOrder\nVv.\n\nZACHARY K. BRADFORD, et al.,\nDefendants.\n\nTo date, the parties have not filed a stipulated discovery plan as required by Local Rule 26-\nl(a). The parties are hereby ORDERED to file, no later than May 26, 2023, a joint proposed\ndiscovery plan.\n\nIT IS SO ORDERED.\n\nDated: May 19, 2023\n\nffs 2 o\u2014\nNancy J . Koppe\nUnited States\\Magistrate Judge\n\n","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2023-05-22T01:26:40.442922-07:00","document_number":"39","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"11509968711","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":true,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2023-05-19T10:11:32.766044-07:00","date_modified":"2024-11-19T05:58:02.383894-08:00","date_filed":"2023-05-19","time_filed":"09:51:42","entry_number":39,"recap_sequence_number":"2023-05-19.001","pacer_sequence_number":144,"description":"ORDER. IT IS ORDERED the parties are hereby ordered to file, no later than 5/26/2023, a joint proposed discovery plan.   Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 5/19/2023.   (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JQC)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/267064686/","id":267064686,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67134325/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/273260745/","id":273260745,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/67134325/26/iraci-v-bradford/","date_created":"2023-04-07T12:16:34.620629-07:00","date_modified":"2024-11-19T04:27:02.463151-08:00","sha1":"c41bb21c771899df12f8e47bed8b287c2c718bc1","page_count":1,"file_size":112007,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.nvd.160997/gov.uscourts.nvd.160997.26.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nvd.160997/gov.uscourts.nvd.160997.26.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"0 \u00a9 YN DOD WwW B&B WwW HY\n\nNO wo NN WN NY NO NN NO HNO ee eRe RFE FEO OOOO\noOo YD WO Wn ff W NO KF OC OO WO NHN WD Nr Sf WW NY KF OS\n\nCase 2:23-cv-00315-JAD-NJK Document 26 Filed 04/07/23 Page 1 of 1\n\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\nDISTRICT OF NEVADA\n\nNICHOLAS IRACI, Case No. 2:23-cv-00315-JAD-NJK\nPlaintiff, Order\n\nV.\n\nZACHARY K. BRADFORD, et al.,\n\nDefendants.\n\nThis case has been removed on diversity grounds. See Docket No. 1.\n\nTo assist federal courts in ensuring that diversity jurisdiction exists, the disclosure\nstatement filed by each party \u201cmust name\u2014and identify the citizenship of\u2014every individual or\nentity whose citizenship is attributed to that party.\u201d Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1(a)(2).! Neither party\nidentifies their citizenship in their certificate of interested parties. See Docket Nos. 2 (Defendants\u2019\ncertificate of interested parties); 25 (Plaintiffs certificate of interested parties).\n\nAccordingly, Plaintiff and Defendants must file amended certificates of interested parties\nby April 14, 2023, fully identifying the citizenship of any party attributed to them.\n\nIT IS SO ORDERED. A\n\nDated: April 7, 2023 ZK) Fn.\n\nNancy J K\u00e9ppe\nUnited \u2019States\\Magistrate Judge\n\n1 This federal rule became effective on December 1, 2022.\n\n","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2023-04-10T01:30:34.508737-07:00","document_number":"26","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"11509911491","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":true,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2023-04-07T12:16:34.610140-07:00","date_modified":"2024-11-19T04:27:02.444032-08:00","date_filed":"2023-04-07","time_filed":"11:24:05","entry_number":26,"recap_sequence_number":"2023-04-07.001","pacer_sequence_number":108,"description":" ORDER. Plaintiff and Defendant must file an Amended     Certificate of Interested Parties by 4/14/2023, fully identifying the citizenship of any party attributed to them.  Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 4/7/2023.   (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KF)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/264752473/","id":264752473,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67134325/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/270945493/","id":270945493,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/67134325/23/iraci-v-bradford/","date_created":"2023-04-05T11:19:13.899730-07:00","date_modified":"2024-11-19T04:02:23.214529-08:00","sha1":"f771f26896563bc156a415e2717fdb54d480daa6","page_count":3,"file_size":270964,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.nvd.160997/gov.uscourts.nvd.160997.23.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nvd.160997/gov.uscourts.nvd.160997.23.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"     Case 2:23-cv-00315-JAD-NJK Document 23 Filed 04/05/23 Page 1 of 3\n\n\n\n 1   MARK J. CONNOT (10010)\n     COLLEEN E. MCCARTY (13186)\n 2   FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP\n     1980 Festival Plaza Drive, Ste. 700\n 3   Las Vegas, NV 89135\n     Telephone: 702.262.6899\n 4   Facsimile: 702.597.5503\n     mconnot@foxrothschild.com\n 5   cmccarty@foxrothschild.com\n     Counsel for Defendants Zachary K. Bradford, Lori L. Love,\n 6   S. Matthew Schultz, Robert P. Beynon, Larry McNeill, and\n     Thomas L. Wood and Nominal Defendant Cleanspark, Inc.\n 7\n\n 8                              UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n 9                                      DISTRICT OF NEVADA\n10\n     NICHOLAS IRACI, Derivatively on Behalf of           Case No.: 2:23-cv-00315-JAD-NJK\n11   CLEANSPARK, INC.,\n                      Plaintiff,                         (Removal from District Court, Clark County,\n12                                                       Nevada, Case No. A-23-866172-C)\n     v.\n13\n\n14   ZACHARY K. BRADFORD, LORI L. LOVE,\n     S. MATTHEW SCHULTZ, ROGER P.       JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER\n15   BEYNON, LARRY MCNEILL, and THOMAS EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO\n     L. WOOD,                           COMPLAINT\n16\n                            Defendants,\n17\n                                                                  ECF No. 21\n18   -and-\n\n19   CLEANSPARK, INC., a Nevada Corporation,\n\n20                          Nominal Defendant.\n21\n\n22           Plaintiff Nicholas Iraci (\u201cPlaintiff\u201d), derivatively on behalf of Nominal Plaintiff\n\n23   CleanSpark, Inc. (\u201cCleanSpark\u201d) and Defendants Zachary K. Bradford, Lori L. Love, S.\n\n24   Matthew Schultz, Larry McNeill, Thomas L. Wood, Roger P. Beynon (the \u201cIndividual\n\n25   Defendants\u201d), and Nominal Defendant CleanSpark (together with the Individual Defendants,\n\n26   \u201cDefendants\u201d) (collectively, with Plaintiff, the \u201cParties\u201d), by and through their undersigned\n\n27   counsel, hereby enter into the following stipulation and proposed order:\n\n28   ///\n                                                     1\n     144371336.1\n\f     Case 2:23-cv-00315-JAD-NJK Document 23 Filed 04/05/23 Page 2 of 3\n\n\n\n 1           WHEREAS, on February 24, 2023, Plaintiff filed a shareholder derivative complaint (the\n\n 2   \u201cComplaint\u201d) on behalf of Nominal Plaintiff CleanSpark in the Eighth Judicial District Court of\n\n 3   the State of Nevada in and for Clark County (the \u201cState Court\u201d), captioned Iraci v. Bradford, et\n\n 4   al., Case No. A-23-866172-C (this \u201cAction\u201d); and\n\n 5           WHEREAS, on February 28, 2023, the Defendant S. Matthew Schultz filed a Petition\n\n 6   for Removal (Dkt. 1) and Notice of Removal, removing this Action from State Court to the\n\n 7   United States District Court for the District of Nevada; and\n\n 8           WHEREAS, on March 24, 2023, the Individual Defendants filed a Motion to\n\n 9   Consolidate, asking the Court to consolidate this Action into the consolidated shareholder\n\n10   derivative action pending in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, In re\n\n11   CleanSpark, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Case No. 2:21-cv-01181-GMN-BNW (the \u201cMotion to\n\n12   Consolidate\u201d) (Dkt. 15); and\n\n13           WHEREAS, on March 30, 2023, Plaintiff filed the Motion to Remand and for Attorney\u2019s\n\n14   Fees and Costs, which has been noticed for consideration by the Court in the normal course (the\n\n15   \u201cMotion to Remand\u201d) (Dkt. 16); and\n\n16           WHEREAS, Defendants intend to move to dismiss the Complaint in this Action; and\n\n17           WHEREAS, the Parties agree to extend the deadline for Defendants to respond to the\n\n18   Complaint until on or before April 24, 2023.\n\n19           WHEREAS, the Parties agree to extend the deadline for Plaintiff to oppose any motion\n\n20   to dismiss the Complaint that Defendants file until on or before May 24, 2023.\n\n21           WHEREAS, the Parties agree to extend the deadline for Defendants to reply in support\n\n22   of any motion to dismiss the Complaint until on or before June 14, 2023.\n\n23           NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by the Parties\n\n24   hereto, through their undersigned counsel, subject to the approval of the Court, as follows:\n\n25           1.     Defendants\u2019 deadline to respond to the Complaint is extended until on or before\n\n26   April 24, 2023.\n\n27           2.     Plaintiff\u2019s deadline to oppose any motion to dismiss the Complaint that\n\n28   Defendants file is extended until on or before May 24, 2023.\n                                                     2\n     144371336.1\n\f     Case 2:23-cv-00315-JAD-NJK Document 23 Filed 04/05/23 Page 3 of 3\n\n\n\n 1           3.     Defendants\u2019 deadline to reply in support of any motion to dismiss the Complaint\n\n 2   that Defendants file is extended until on or before June 14, 2023.\n\n 3           4.     Other than as agreed herein, the Parties reserve all rights.\n\n 4\n\n 5   DATED: April 4, 2023                                 DATED: April 4, 2023\n 6\n     FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP                                   ALDRICH LAW FIRM, LTD.\n 7\n     /s/ Colleen E. McCarty                               /s/ John P. Aldrich\n 8   MARK J. CONNOT (10010)                               JOHN P. ALDRICH (6877)\n     COLLEEN E. MCCARTY (13186)                           CATHERINE HERNANDEZ (8410)\n 9   1980 Festival Plaza Drive, Ste. 700                  7866 West Sahara Avenue\n10   Las Vegas, NV 89135                                  Las Vegas, Nevada 89117\n     mconnot@foxrothschild.com                            jaldrich@johnaldrichlawfirm.com\n11   cmcarty@foxrothschild.com                            chernandez@johnaldrichlawfirm.com\n     Counsel for Defendants                               Counsel for Plaintiffs\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n                                                   IT IS SO ORDERED.\n15\n\n16                                                 _____________________________________\n                                                   UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE\n17                                                 DATED: April 5, 2023\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\n26\n\n27\n\n28\n                                                      3\n     144371336.1\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2023-04-06T01:25:06.716269-07:00","document_number":"23","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"11509907751","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":true,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order AND Order on Stipulation","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2023-04-05T11:19:13.893092-07:00","date_modified":"2024-11-19T04:02:23.201996-08:00","date_filed":"2023-04-05","time_filed":"10:18:41","entry_number":23,"recap_sequence_number":"2023-04-05.001","pacer_sequence_number":98,"description":"  ORDER Granting  21   Stipulation to Extend Deadline to Answer  1   Petition for Removal.    Roger P. Beynon answer due 4/24/2023; Zachary K. Bradford answer due 4/24/2023; CleanSpark, Inc. answer due 4/24/2023; Lori L. Love answer due 4/24/2023; Larry McNeill answer due 4/24/2023; S. Matthew Schultz answer due 4/24/2023; Thomas L. Wood answer due 4/24/2023.   Signed by Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey on 4/5/2023.   (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KF)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/264752468/","id":264752468,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67134325/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/270945488/","id":270945488,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/67134325/24/iraci-v-bradford/","date_created":"2023-04-05T11:19:13.698842-07:00","date_modified":"2024-11-19T04:02:29.395291-08:00","sha1":"c9c5683b8771ec1e2d6edc13a70e0aa2424242fa","page_count":3,"file_size":311270,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.nvd.160997/gov.uscourts.nvd.160997.24.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nvd.160997/gov.uscourts.nvd.160997.24.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"     Case 2:23-cv-00315-JAD-NJK Document 24 Filed 04/05/23 Page 1 of 3\n\n\n\n 1   MARK J. CONNOT (10010)\n     COLLEEN E. MCCARTY (13186)\n 2   FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP\n     1980 Festival Plaza Drive, Ste. 700\n 3   Las Vegas, NV 89135\n     Telephone: 702.262.6899\n 4   Facsimile: 702.597.5503\n     mconnot@foxrothschild.com\n 5   cmccarty@foxrothschild.com\n     Counsel for Defendants Zachary K. Bradford, Lori L. Love,\n 6   S. Matthew Schultz, Robert P. Beynon, Larry McNeill, and\n     Thomas L. Wood and Nominal Defendant Cleanspark, Inc.\n 7\n\n 8                              UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n 9                                      DISTRICT OF NEVADA\n10\n     NICHOLAS IRACI, Derivatively on Behalf of           Case No.: 2:23-cv-00315-JAD-NJK\n11   CLEANSPARK, INC.,\n                      Plaintiff,                         (Removal from District Court, Clark County,\n12                                                       Nevada, Case No. A-23-866172-C)\n     v.\n13\n\n14   ZACHARY K. BRADFORD, LORI L. LOVE,\n     S. MATTHEW SCHULTZ, ROGER P.       JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER\n15   BEYNON, LARRY MCNEILL, and THOMAS EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO\n     L. WOOD,                           MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE\n16\n                            Defendants,\n17\n     -and-                                                        ECF Nos. 15, 22\n18\n\n19   CLEANSPARK, INC., a Nevada Corporation,\n\n20                          Nominal Defendant.\n21\n\n22           Plaintiff Nicholas Iraci (\u201cPlaintiff\u201d), derivatively on behalf of Nominal Plaintiff\n\n23   CleanSpark, Inc. (\u201cCleanSpark\u201d) and Defendants Zachary K. Bradford, Lori L. Love, S.\n\n24   Matthew Schultz, Larry McNeill, Thomas L. Wood, Roger P. Beynon (the \u201cIndividual\n\n25   Defendants\u201d), and Nominal Defendant CleanSpark (together with the Individual Defendants,\n\n26   \u201cDefendants\u201d) (collectively, with Plaintiff, the \u201cParties\u201d), by and through their undersigned\n\n27   counsel, hereby enter into the following stipulation and proposed order:\n\n28   ///\n                                                     1\n     144371366.1\n\f     Case 2:23-cv-00315-JAD-NJK Document 24 Filed 04/05/23 Page 2 of 3\n\n\n\n 1           WHEREAS, on February 24, 2023, Plaintiff filed a shareholder derivative complaint (the\n\n 2   \u201cComplaint\u201d) on behalf of Nominal Plaintiff CleanSpark in the Eighth Judicial District Court of\n\n 3   the State of Nevada in and for Clark County (\u201cState Court\u201d), captioned Iraci v. Bradford, et al.,\n\n 4   Case No. A-23-866172-C (this \u201cAction\u201d); and\n\n 5           WHEREAS, on February 28, 2023, the Defendant S. Matthew Schultz filed a Petition\n\n 6   for Removal (Dkt. 1) and Notice of Removal, removing this Action from State Court to the\n\n 7   United States District Court for the District of Nevada; and\n\n 8           WHEREAS, on March 24, 2023, the Individual Defendants filed a Motion to\n\n 9   Consolidate, asking the Court to consolidate this Action into the consolidated shareholder\n\n10   derivative action pending in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, In re\n\n11   CleanSpark, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Case No. 2:21-cv-01181-GMN-BNW (the \u201cMotion to\n\n12   Consolidate\u201d) (Dkt. 15); and\n\n13           WHEREAS, on March 30, 2023, Plaintiff filed the Motion to Remand and for Attorney\u2019s\n\n14   Fees and Costs, which has been noticed for consideration by the Court in the normal course (the\n\n15   \u201cMotion to Remand\u201d) (Dkt. 16); and\n\n16           WHEREAS, Defendants intend to move to dismiss the Complaint in this Action; and\n\n17           WHEREAS, the Parties agree to extend the deadline for Plaintiff to oppose the Motion\n\n18   to Consolidate (Dkt. 15) until on or before April 17, 2023; and\n\n19           WHEREAS, the Parties agree to extend the deadline for Defendants to reply in support\n\n20   of the Motion to Consolidate until on or before April 24, 2023.\n\n21           NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by the Parties\n\n22   hereto, through their undersigned counsel, subject to the approval of the Court, as follows:\n\n23           1.     Plaintiff\u2019s deadline to oppose the Motion to Consolidate is extended until on or\n\n24   before April 17, 2023.\n\n25           2.     Defendants\u2019 deadline to reply in support of the Motion to Consolidate is extended\n\n26   until on or before April 24, 2023.\n\n27   ///\n\n28   ///\n                                                     2\n     144371366.1\n\f     Case 2:23-cv-00315-JAD-NJK Document 24 Filed 04/05/23 Page 3 of 3\n\n\n\n 1           3.    Other than as agreed herein, the Parties reserve all rights.\n\n 2   DATED: April 4, 2023                                DATED: April 4, 2023\n 3\n     FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP                                  ALDRICH LAW FIRM, LTD.\n 4\n     /s/ Colleen E. McCarty                              /s/ John P. Aldrich\n 5   MARK J. CONNOT (10010)                              JOHN P. ALDRICH (6877)\n     COLLEEN E. MCCARTY (13186)                          CATHERINE HERNANDEZ (8410)\n 6   1980 Festival Plaza Drive, Ste. 700                 7866 West Sahara Avenue\n 7   Las Vegas, NV 89135                                 Las Vegas, Nevada 89117\n     mconnot@foxrothschild.com                           jaldrich@johnaldrichlawfirm.com\n 8   cmccarty@foxrothschild.com                          chernandez@johnaldrichlawfirm.com\n     Counsel for Defendants                              Counsel for Plaintiffs\n 9\n\n10\n\n11\n                                                  IT IS SO ORDERED.\n12\n\n13                                                _____________________________________\n                                                  UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE\n14                                                DATED: April 5, 2023\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\n26\n\n27\n\n28\n                                                     3\n     144371366.1\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2023-04-06T01:25:51.736537-07:00","document_number":"24","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"11509907766","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":true,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order AND Order on Stipulation","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2023-04-05T11:19:13.688020-07:00","date_modified":"2024-11-19T04:02:29.385238-08:00","date_filed":"2023-04-05","time_filed":"10:22:17","entry_number":24,"recap_sequence_number":"2023-04-05.001","pacer_sequence_number":102,"description":"  ORDER Granting  22   Stipulation to Extend Deadlines re  15   Motion to Consolidate Cases.     Responses due by 4/17/2023.  Replies due by 4/24/2023.  Signed by Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey on 4/5/2023.   (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KF)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/262970268/","id":262970268,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67134325/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/269162165/","id":269162165,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/67134325/20/iraci-v-bradford/","date_created":"2023-04-04T13:18:13.761431-07:00","date_modified":"2023-04-04T13:18:13.764940-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"20","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"11509906457","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order on Stipulation","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2023-04-04T13:18:13.750968-07:00","date_modified":"2023-04-04T13:18:13.754961-07:00","date_filed":"2023-04-04","time_filed":"13:00:32","entry_number":20,"recap_sequence_number":"2023-04-04.001","pacer_sequence_number":86,"description":"","tags":[]}],"entries_total":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/?count=on&docket=67134325&page_size=40"}