Cress v. Nexo Financial LLC et al

1
JOINT STIPULATION REGARDING SUMMARY JUDGMENT DEADLINES AND
FILINGS
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
SUMMARY JUDGMENT DEADLINES
AND FILINGS, PRE-TRIAL
CONFERENCE AND TRIAL DATES,
AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
Case 3:23-cv-00882-TSH Document 160 Filed 08/12/26 Page 1 of 7

2
JOINT STIPULATION REGARDING SUMMARY JUDGMENT DEADLINES AND
FILINGS
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
1. 	The Court’s Scheduling Order set August 7, 2026 as the last day for the parties to
file dispositive motions. (Dkt. 137.) Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(a)(4)(A), electronic
filings were accordingly due by midnight Pacific time on August 7, 2026.
2. 	On August 7, 2026, 	Plaintiff John Cress 	(“Plaintiff”) 	finalized 	and 	began
electronically filing his summary judgment package: Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment on His Third, Fourth, and Fifth Causes of Action (the “MSJ”) (Dkt. 155); Plaintiff’s
Motion to Exclude the Opinions and Testimony of Dr. Randall Valentine (the “Valentine Motion”)
(Dkt. 154); the declarations of Max Ambrose in support of the MSJ and the Valentine Motion;
Plaintiff’s Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party’s Material Should Be Sealed
pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(f) (the “Administrative Motion”), with its supporting
declaration; and the redacted and under-seal versions of those materials required by Civil Local
Rule 79-5 (collectively, the “Summary Judgment Filings”) (Dkt. 156).
3. 	Plaintiff submitted the Administrative Motion at 11:40 p.m. on August 7, 2026, and
attempted to submit the MSJ at approximately 11:52 p.m. Upon attempted submission, Plaintiff’s
counsel encountered unexpected technical problems which required troubleshooting and re-
uploads of the MSJ files. The MSJ was ultimately filed at 12:19 a.m. on August 8, 2026, and the
Valentine Motion was ultimately filed at 12:46 a.m. on August 8, 2026 — approximately 19 and
46 minutes, respectively, after the midnight deadline. Plaintiff’s counsel worked continuously past
midnight until the submission was complete, and the Summary Judgment Filings were served on
Defendant Nexo Capital Inc. (“Nexo”) through ECF as they were docketed.
4. 	Plaintiff’s counsel promptly notified Nexo’s counsel on August 9, 2026, explained
what had occurred, and requested a stipulation. On August 10, 2026, Nexo’s counsel confirmed
that Nexo agrees to stipulate that the Summary Judgment Filings be deemed timely filed, and
confirmed that Nexo does not require additional time to prepare its opposition.
5. 	The requested relief will not affect any hearing date or any other case deadline. The
Case 3:23-cv-00882-TSH Document 160 Filed 08/12/26 Page 2 of 7

3
JOINT STIPULATION REGARDING SUMMARY JUDGMENT DEADLINES AND
FILINGS
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
parties’ previously stipulated briefing schedule for the parties’ cross-motions for summary
judgment (Dkt. 138) is unaffected and continues to control the opposition and reply deadlines.
6. 	Good cause supports the requested relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B), 16(b)(4);
Civil L.R. 6-1(b), 6-2; Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1258–59 (9th Cir. 2010);
Spatola v. Desrouleaux, No. CV 23-06191-MWF (JPRx), 2024 WL 5642558 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 25,
2024) (deeming timely a summary judgment motion filed 18 minutes after the deadline where
technical issues delayed a voluminous ECF submission). The delays were approximately 19 and
46 minutes, resulted from unexpected technical problems encountered while completing a
voluminous ECF submission rather than from inattention to the case schedule, caused no prejudice
to Nexo, and had no impact on these proceedings, and Plaintiff acted in good faith throughout.
7. 	Nexo wishes to correct a duplicate docket entry regarding one of its timely
summary judgment filings. In particular, Nexo inadvertently filed two duplicative versions of its
administrative motion to consider whether another party’s material should be sealed in connection
with its summary judgment motion. ECF No. 150 attached the sealed motion and statement of
supporting facts and ECF No. 151 filed redacted, public versions of those same documents with
the same substantive motion. Nexo realizes this second filing was not needed, given public
versions of such documents were appropriately included with the summary judgment filing at ECF
No. 153. Nexo also filed sealed versions of the supporting exhibits at ECF No. 152. The parties
agree that ECF No. 150 (motion and sealed copies) and 152 (sealed exhibits) compromise
Defendants Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party's Material Should be
Sealed and that ECF No. 151 may be stricken or otherwise disregarded as duplicative of other
filings. Plaintiff does not oppose this relief.
8. 	Finally, for good cause, the parties stipulate and agree to the following modification
of the final three deadlines in the Court’s scheduling order related to pre-trial conferences and trial
(ECF No. 109):
Case 3:23-cv-00882-TSH Document 160 Filed 08/12/26 Page 3 of 7

4
JOINT STIPULATION REGARDING SUMMARY JUDGMENT DEADLINES AND
FILINGS
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
Event 	Original Date 	New Date
Pretrial Conference 	February 18, 2027 	April 1, 2027
Final Pretrial Conference 	March 18, 2027 	April 29, 2027
Trial 	March 29, 2027 	May 10, 2027
9. 	The proposed new dates are on the same days of the week, and have the same
number of days between them, as the original dates.
10. 	Good cause exists for this modification. Nexo’s lead trial counsel, Ian Shelton,
expects that his wife will have their new baby around February 27, 2027. Mr. Shelton has requested
the scheduling order modifications to allow him to spend time with his family and support his wife
during March 2027. Mr. Cress and his counsel do not object to this extension of time. All other
deadlines in the Court’s scheduling order would remain in effect (ECF No. 51, 109).
11. 	NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(B) and
Civil Local Rules 6-1(b), 6-2, and 7-12, and subject to the Court’s approval, the parties stipulate
as follows:
a) 	All of Plaintiff’s Summary Judgment Filings (Dkt. 154, 155, and 156) shall be deemed
timely filed before midnight Pacific time on August 7, 2026.
b) 	For the avoidance of doubt, the parties’ previously stipulated opposition and reply
deadlines for the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment (Dkt. 138) remain
unchanged.
c) 	ECF No. 151 is stricken as duplicative.
d) 	The Court finds good cause to modify its scheduling order as follows:
Event 	Original Date 	New Date
Pretrial Conference 	February 18, 2027 	April 1, 2027
Final Pretrial Conference 	March 18, 2027 	April 29, 2027
Trial 	March 29, 2027 	May 10, 2027
e) 	No hearing date or other deadline is modified by this Stipulation.
Case 3:23-cv-00882-TSH Document 160 Filed 08/12/26 Page 4 of 7

5
JOINT STIPULATION REGARDING SUMMARY JUDGMENT DEADLINES AND
FILINGS
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
Dated: August 12, 2026 	TAYLOR-COPELAND LAW, P.C.
By: /s/ James Taylor-Copeland
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Dated: August 12, 2026 	BAKER & MCKENZIE LLP
By: /s/ Ian S. Shelton
Attorneys for Defendant
Case 3:23-cv-00882-TSH Document 160 Filed 08/12/26 Page 5 of 7

6
JOINT STIPULATION REGARDING SUMMARY JUDGMENT DEADLINES AND
FILINGS
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
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: August 12, 2026 	TAYLOR-COPELAND LAW, P.C.
By: /s/ Max Ambrose
Case 3:23-cv-00882-TSH Document 160 Filed 08/12/26 Page 6 of 7

7
JOINT STIPULATION REGARDING SUMMARY JUDGMENT DEADLINES AND
FILINGS
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: August 12, 2026
HON. THOMAS S. HIXSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 3:23-cv-00882-TSH Document 160 Filed 08/12/26 Page 7 of 7