This always seemed like a frivolous lawsuit but is
Post# of 153880
(Total Views: 605)
Posted On: 10/07/2022 12:25:44 PM
This always seemed like a frivolous lawsuit but isn’t Scott Kelly more of a liability than an asset at this juncture…? I’m rather hoping Cyrus gets that bump to CEO and shows Kelly the door. The company is hard at work changing its culture and restoring its credibility, so moving forward without SK could only help IMO.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA
The Honorable Benjamin H. Settle
No. 3:21-cv-05190-BHS
BRIAN JOE COURTER, COURTER AND SONS
LLC, DIANE M. HOOPER, THOMAS MCGEE,
and CANDRA E. EVANS, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CYTODYN INC., NADER Z. POURHASSAN,
MICHAEL MULHOLLAND, and SCOTT A.
KELLY,
Defendants.
JOINT STATUS REPORT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING PLEADING SCHEDULE
On September 29, 2022, the parties conducted a private mediation. Although the parties were not able to reach an agreement on September 29, the parties continue to engage in settlement discussions. Accordingly, the parties have conferred and now joinly submit a proposed schedule that provides the parties additional time to engage in further settlement discussions as follows:
1. Deadline for Defendants to Respond to Amended Complaint and/or File Motion(s) to Dismiss: December 16, 2022;
2. Deadline for Plaintiffs to Respond to Defendants’ Motion(s) to
Dismiss: February 16, 2023; and
3. Deadline for Defendants to Reply in Support of Motion(s) to Dismiss: March 22, 2023
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA
The Honorable Benjamin H. Settle
No. 3:21-cv-05190-BHS
BRIAN JOE COURTER, COURTER AND SONS
LLC, DIANE M. HOOPER, THOMAS MCGEE,
and CANDRA E. EVANS, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CYTODYN INC., NADER Z. POURHASSAN,
MICHAEL MULHOLLAND, and SCOTT A.
KELLY,
Defendants.
JOINT STATUS REPORT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING PLEADING SCHEDULE
On September 29, 2022, the parties conducted a private mediation. Although the parties were not able to reach an agreement on September 29, the parties continue to engage in settlement discussions. Accordingly, the parties have conferred and now joinly submit a proposed schedule that provides the parties additional time to engage in further settlement discussions as follows:
1. Deadline for Defendants to Respond to Amended Complaint and/or File Motion(s) to Dismiss: December 16, 2022;
2. Deadline for Plaintiffs to Respond to Defendants’ Motion(s) to
Dismiss: February 16, 2023; and
3. Deadline for Defendants to Reply in Support of Motion(s) to Dismiss: March 22, 2023
(3)
(0)