Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_23-cv-00233/USCOURTS-azd-4_23-cv-00233-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 485
Nature of Suit: 
Cause of Action: 47:227 Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

State of Arizona, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v. 

Michael D Lansky LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-23-00233-TUC-CKJ

ORDER 

On May 23, 2023, this action was filed by multiple State Attorney Generals against 

the Defendants Michael Lansky LLC, and Michael Lansky and Stacy Reeves, individually, 

and all as doing business as Avid Telecom. Defendants have not yet answered. On July 24, 

2023, the Court, pursuant to an unopposed motion, extended the deadline for responding 

to the Complaint to September 7, 2023. At that time, Defendant Reeves was represented 

by attorney Lee Stein, who has since withdrawn, and Defendants Lansky LLC and Michael 

Lansky, were represented by Neil S. Ende, who signed onto the motion for an extension of 

time as, “Pro Hac Vice motion to be filed.” (Motion (Doc. 14)). Mr. Ende did not, however, 

file the motion for pro hac vice until September 8, 2023.

On September 7, 2023, at approximately 6:55 PM, Mr. Ende filed the Application

for Admission to Practice Pro Hac Vice and a (Second) Motion for Extension of Time to 

answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint. Both were docketed as filed on September 

8, 2023. See Dist. of Ariz. Case Management/ECF Admin. Policy & Procedure Manual § 

I.A (NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC FILING (NEF) defined as “notice automatically 

Case 4:23-cv-00233-CKJ Document 24 Filed 09/15/23 Page 1 of 3
- 2 -

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

generated by the ECF system at the time a document is filed with the court.”) Mr. Ende’s 

Application to Practice Pro Hac Vice reflects that he represents Avid Telecom, LLC. The 

Court notes that Avid Telecom is not a named party; Plaintiffs sue all Defendants as doing 

business as Avid Telecom. Therefore, the Court understands Mr. Ende’s application to 

mean he seeks admission pro hac vice to appear and practice in this action on behalf of all 

Defendants.

Also, on September 8, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed an Application for Entry of Default 

because the Defendants failed to defend this action. On September 13, 2023, Plaintiffs filed 

a Response in Opposition to the Motion for Extension of Time to answer or otherwise 

respond to the Complaint.

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 55(a), entry of default for affirmative relief may be 

sought from the Clerk when a party has failed to plead or otherwise defend, and that failure 

is shown by affidavit or otherwise. The Clerk of the Court has not, however, entered default

because of the pending motion by Defendants for an extension of time.

Even if the Court considered the motion for an extension of time to be filed on 

September 7, 2023, Plaintiffs correctly point out that the Defendants offer no explanation 

why the motion and the application to appear pro hac vice were not filed until the eve of 

the time for answering expired. Plaintiffs object to the extension based on Defendants’

assertion that the parties are attempting settlement. While this may have been true, initially, 

it is now clear that the matter will not be resolved expeditiously by settlement. (Response 

(Doc. 22) at 2, 4.) The Court agrees because approximately four months have already 

passed since the Complaint was filed in May. Defendants waived service in mid-June with 

an answer deadline of July 24, 2023, which was extended to September 7, 2023. The Court 

will grant the Defendants, who are now all represented, a limited extension of time to 

enable them to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. 20) is GRANTED, 

extending the time to defend for 21 days from the filing date of this Order.

Case 4:23-cv-00233-CKJ Document 24 Filed 09/15/23 Page 2 of 3
- 3 -

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

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Application for Entry of Default (Doc. 19) 

is DENIED.

Dated this 14th day of September, 2023.

Case 4:23-cv-00233-CKJ Document 24 Filed 09/15/23 Page 3 of 3