Lancium LLC v. U.S. Data Mining Group, Inc. — Entry #18: ORDER GRANTING [17] Motion for Extension of Time to Answer
Case: Lancium LLC v. U.S. Data Mining Group, Inc. txwd · 6:23-cv-00344
filed May 10, 2023
What this document is
Docket entry #18 · filed September 22, 2023
ORDER GRANTING [17] Motion for Extension of Time to Answer ; U.S. Data King Mountain LLC, U.S. Data Mining Group, Inc. and U.S. Mining Infrastructure Operations, LLC answer due 1/15/2024. All other deadlines in this matter are STAYED until January 15, 2024. Barring exceptional circumstances, no further extensions of Defendants response deadline will be granted. Signed by Judge Kathleen Cardone. (lad)
Who is involved
- Lancium LLC
- U.S. Data King Mountain LLC
- U.S. Data Mining Group, Inc.
- U.S. Mining Infrastructure Operations, LLC
Why we have it
We follow this case because it names a company we track, although that company is not a party:
- Marathon Digital: its name “Marathon Digital Holdings, Inc.” appears in a filing in this case.
…(“MARA Order Form”), each by and between Marathon Digital Holdings, Inc. (“MARA”) and TZRC KM (the “MARA Lien”);…
- Hut 8: its former name “Hut 8 Mining Corp.” appears in a filing in this case.
…address activities, events or developments that Hut 8 Mining Corp. (“Hut 8”) expects or anticipates will or…
A free copy from the RECAP archive of federal court filings (mirrored at the Internet Archive), retrieved October 16, 2026. Federal court filings are public records.
Document text
2 page(s), 3,057 characters, converted from the PDF's text layer · plain text.
Full text
Case 6:23-cv-00344-KC Document 18 Filed 09/22/23 Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
WACO DIVISION
LANCIUM LLC, §
§
Plaintiff, §
§
v. § CAUSE NO. WA-23-CV-344-KC
§
U.S. DATA MINING GROUP, INC. §
d/b/a US BITCOIN; U.S. MINING §
INFRASTRUCTURE OPERATIONS, §
LLC; and U.S. DATA KING §
MOUNTAIN LLC, §
§
Defendants. §
ORDER
On this day, the Court considered the parties’ Joint Motion to Extend Stay (“Motion”),
ECF No. 17. Plaintiff filed its Complaint, ECF No. 1, on May 10, 2023. On May 31, the Court
granted Defendants’ request to extend their deadline to respond to the Complaint until July 3.
May 31, 2023, Text Order. On July 1, the parties filed a Joint Motion for Extension of Time for
Defendants to Respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint and Stay All Other Deadlines until October 2,
ECF No. 15, which the Court granted, ECF No. 16. The Court advised the parties, however, that
“[b]arring exceptional circumstances, no further extension of Defendants’ response deadline will
be granted. Id.
The parties now seek to extend the response deadline and the stay until January 15, 2024.
Mot. 2. The parties advise they have “engaged in continued negotiations but have not yet been
able to reach [a] final resolution” because Defendants are concurrently attempting to finalize a
proposed merger. Mot. 1–2. The parties request an extension so they can continue their “good
faith negotiations” and avoid needlessly expending resources on litigation. Id. The Court finds
Case 6:23-cv-00344-KC Document 18 Filed 09/22/23 Page 2 of 2
the parties have shown circumstances warranting another extension. But mindful of its duty to
ensure timely administration of justice, the Court will not look favorably upon further requests to
extend the response deadline.
For these reasons, the Motion is GRANTED. Defendants’ deadline to respond to
Plaintiff’s Complaint is EXTENDED to January 15, 2024.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all other deadlines in this matter are STAYED until
January 15, 2024.
Barring exceptional circumstances, no further extensions of Defendants’ response
deadline will be granted.
SO ORDERED.
SIGNED this 22nd day of September, 2023.
KATHLEEN CARDONE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2