Cress v. Nexo Financial LLC et al

JOINT STIPULATION REGARDING BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON MOTION FOR
SANCTIONS AND MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James Taylor-Copeland (284743)
james@taylorcopelandlaw.com
Max Ambrose (320964)
maxambrose@taylorcopelandlaw.com
TAYLOR-COPELAND LAW
501 W. Broadway, Suite 800
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: (619) 734-8770
Fax: (619) 566-4341
Counsel for Plaintiff John Cress
Ian S. Shelton (264863)
ianshelton@bakermckenzie.com
BAKER & MCKENZIE LLP
10250 Constellation Boulevard, Suite 1850
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (310) 299-8535
Fax: (310) 201-4721
Counsel for Defendant Nexo Capital Inc.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
JOHN CRESS,
Plaintiff,
v.
NEXO CAPITAL INC.,
Defendant.
Case No. 3:23-CV-00882-TSH
JOINT STIPULATION REGARDING
BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON MOTION
FOR SANCTIONS AND MOTIONS FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND
[PROPOSED] ORDER
Case 3:23-cv-00882-TSH Document 138 Filed 07/09/26 Page 1 of 4

JOINT STIPULATION REGARDING BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON MOTION FOR
SANCTIONS AND MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
JOINT STIPULATION
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1) and Local Rule 6-2, Plaintiff John Cress (“Plaintiff”)
and Defendant Nexo Capital Inc. (“Nexo”) (collectively, “the Parties”), by and through their
respective counsel, hereby stipulate and agree to the following modification of the briefing
schedules for Plaintiff’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions or, in the Alternative, Curative
Sanctions Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e), 37(b) (“Sanctions Motion”), and for the Parties’
anticipated Motions for Summary Judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 (“SJ Motions”).
WHEREAS, Plaintiff’s Sanctions Motion was filed on July 6, 2026 (ECF 135). The
opposition is currently due on July 20, and the reply is due on July 27. The hearing is currently
scheduled for August 13, 2026 at 10:00 a.m.
WHEREAS, good cause exists to modify the briefing schedule on the Sanctions Motion
because Defendant’s lead counsel has an international family vacation scheduled for July 11
through 22, 2026.
WHEREAS, the Sanctions Motion is 25-pages long, attaches 48 exhibits, and will require
sufficient time for Defendant to prepare its response.
WHEREAS, the SJ Motions are currently due on August 7, 2026 (ECF 109). Under the
Local Rules, the oppositions are currently due on August 21, and the replies are due on August 28.
See Local Rule 7-3. The hearing is currently scheduled for October 22, 2026 at 10:00 a.m.
WHEREAS, the parties agree that a ten-page extension of the page limits for the primary
SJ briefs, a five-page extension for the SJ replies, and an extension of time on the default due dates
is appropriate. Good cause exists to modify the SJ briefing schedule and page limits given the
number of claims and the complexity of the issues.
WHEREAS, this is the first request for modification of the briefing schedule as to these
two motions. The Parties do not believe that these modifications will disturb the schedule for the
case, including the remaining deadlines set in the Court’s scheduling order (ECF 109).
Case 3:23-cv-00882-TSH Document 138 Filed 07/09/26 Page 2 of 4

JOINT STIPULATION REGARDING BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON MOTION FOR
SANCTIONS AND MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED, SUBJECT TO THE
COURT’S APPROVAL:
1. Defendant shall file its opposition to the Sanctions Motion by July 27, Plaintiff shall
file his reply by August 3, and the hearing shall be rescheduled to August 20, 2026 at 10 a.m.
2. The Parties shall file their oppositions to the SJ Motions by September 11 and their
replies by September 30. The current SJ hearing date of October 22, 2026 at 10 a.m. will remain
the same.
3. The page limit for the Parties’ opening and responsive SJ briefs shall be extended
to 35 pages. The page limit for the parties’ reply SJ briefs shall be extended to 20 pages.
4. All other instructions and deadlines in the Court’s prior scheduling orders (ECF 51,
109) remain in full force and effect.
Dated: July 8, 2026 TAYLOR-COPELAND LAW
By: /s/ James Taylor-Copeland
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Date: July 8, 2026 BAKER & MCKENZIE LLP
By: /s/ Ian S. Shelton
Attorneys for Defendant
ATTESTATION
Pursuant To Civil Local Rule 5-1(i)(3) regarding signatures, I attest that concurrence in
the filing of this document has been obtained from the other signatories.
Date: July 8, 2026 BAKER & MCKENZIE LLP
By: /s/ Ian S. Shelton
Case 3:23-cv-00882-TSH Document 138 Filed 07/09/26 Page 3 of 4

JOINT STIPULATION REGARDING BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON MOTION FOR
SANCTIONS AND MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: July 9, 2026
HON. THOMAS S. HIXSON
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 3:23-cv-00882-TSH Document 138 Filed 07/09/26 Page 4 of 4