HF Foods Group Inc. v. Maodong Xu

1 Rew R. Goodenow, NV Bar No. 3722 PARSONS BEHLE & LATIMER 50 W. Liberty Street, Suite 750 Reno, Nevada 89501 Telephone: (775) 323-1601 Facsimile: (775) 348-7250 Email: [email protected] Thomas J. Fleming, NY Bar No. (pro hac pending) Jacqueline Ma, NY Bar No. (pro hac pending) Olshan Frome Wolosky LLP 1325 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 451-2213 Facsimile: (212) 451-2222 Email: [email protected] 9 [email protected] Attorney for Defendants Fai Lam, in his capacity as Trustee of The Irrevocable Trust for Raymond Ni, Weihui Kwok and Yuanyuan Wu.

12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 13 DISTRICT OF NEVADA HF FOODS GROUP INC., a Delaware Case No. 2:23-cv-00748 GMN-DJA corporation Plaintiff, DEFENDANTS FAI LAM, AS 17 TRUSTEE, WEIHUI KWOK, AND vs. YUANYUAN WU REQUEST AN 18 EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND MAODONG XU; ZHOU MIN NI; FAI LAM, TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT in his capacity as Trustee of THE IRREVOCABLE TRUST FOR RAYMOND (FIRST REQUEST) NI; WEIHUI KWOK; and YUANYUAN WU, Expedited Consideration Requested 21 Defendants.

23 Pursuant to the provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6 and Local Rule IA 6-1, Defendants Fai Lam as Trustee of the Irrevocable Trust for Raymond Ni, Weihui Kwok, and YuanYuan Wu (“Defendants”), by and through their attorney, Rew R. Goodenow of Parsons Behle & Latimer, respectfully moves this Court for an extension by thirty (30) days of their deadline to respond to the Complaint (ECF # 2) filed by Plaintiff HF Foods Group Inc. on May 11, 2023 (“Complaint”). This Motion is based upon the following Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the pleadings filed in this matter, and any argument or testimony the Court may entertain.

DATED: June 5, 2023. By /s/ Rew R. Goodenow 4 Rew R. Goodenow, Nevada Bar No. 3722 PARSON BEHLE & LATIMER Attorney for Defendants Fai Lam, in his capacity as 6 Trustee of The Irrevocable Trust for Raymond Ni, Weihui Kwok and Yuanyuan Wu

9 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 10 Pursuant to the provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6 and Local Rule IA 6-1, Defendants, by and through their attorneys, respectfully move this Court for an extension by thirty (30) days of their deadline to respond to the Compliant filed by Plaintiff HF Foods Group Inc. (“Plaintiff”) and in support thereof states as follows: I.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On May 11, 2023, Plaintiff filed the Complaint (ECF # 2), together with accompanying exhibits. The Complaint was filed with an emergency motion, which was mooted by later action by some of the Defendants.

20 The undersigned counsel was engaged today, June 5 2023. The undersigned counsel has requested that Plaintiff stipulate to a thirty (30) day extension. However, because today is at least one of the Defendant’s deadline to respond to the Complaint, and the undersigned counsel has not yet received a response to the request for extension, this Motion is filed, in abundance of caution.

II.

25 ARGUMENT 26 Defendants move to extend by thirty (30) days their deadline to respond to the Complaint Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6, this Court may, for good cause, extend a deadline if a || request is made “before the original time or its extension expires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A); see also Local Rule IA 6-1(a). Good cause exists here. The undersigned counsel was just engaged today, June 5, 2023. The initial pleadings are voluminous.

Il.

5 CONCLUSION 6 For the foregoing reasons, Defendants respectfully request that this Court grant their request for an extension by thirty (30) days of the deadline to file a response to the Complaint.

9 By. /s/ Rew R. Goodenow 10 Rew R. Goodenow, Nevada Bar No. 3722 PARSON BEHLE & LATIMER Attorney for Defendants Fai Lam, in his capacity as 12 Trustee of The Irrevocable Trust for Raymond Ni, Weihui Kwok and Yuanyuan Wu 15 ORDER |} Having reviewed Defendants’ motion, the Court finds that they have demonstrated good cause to extend th deadline by which to respond to Plaintiff's complaint. Defendants’ counsel represents that Defendants || retained him the day at least one of the Defendants' answers was due. Additionally, there is a strong public policy in the Ninth Circuit of deciding cases on the merits, rather than technicalities. See U.S. v. Signed || Personal Check No. 730 of Yubran S. Mesle, 615 F.3d 1085, 1091 (9th Cir. 2010). IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to extend time [44] is GRANTED. Defendants Fai Lam, in his capacity as Trustee of The Irrevocable Trust for Raymond Ni, Weihui Kwok and Yuanyuan Wu || shall have until July 5, 2023 within which to answer the complaint.

21 || DATED this 6th day of June, 2023.

22 ) _- 24 DANIEL J. ALBREGTS 35 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE PARSONS BEHLE & 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I am an employee of the law firm of Parsons Behle & Latimer and that on this 5th day of June, 2023, I filed a true and correct copy of the foregoing DEFENDANTS FAI LAM, AS TRUSTEE, WEIHUI KWOK, AND YUANYUAN WU REQUEST AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT with the Clerk of the Court through the Court’s CM/ECF system, which sent electronic notification to the following: 9 Frank M Flansburg, III Emily Louise Dyer Maximilien Fetaz 11 Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck North City Parkway, Suite 1600 12 Las Vegas, NV 89106 Email: [email protected]; [email protected] 13 [email protected]

/s/ Kathy Souviron 16 Employee of Parsons Behle & Latimer