- 1 -

Motion for Extension of Time 

2:15-cv-01674-ROS

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

Marc J. Randazza, AZ Bar No.: 27861

Ronald D. Green, Pro Hac Vice

RANDAZZA LEGAL GROUP, PLLC

3625 S. Town Center Drive, Suite 150

Las Vegas, NV 89135

Telephone: 702-420-2001

Facsimile: 305-437-7662

ecf@randazza.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff,

AMA Multimedia LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

AMA MULTIMEDIA LLC, 

a Nevada limited liability company,

Plaintiff,

vs.

MARCIN WANAT, a foreign citizen; 

John Does 1-25; and

Roe Corporations 26-50,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:15-cv-01674-ROS 

PLAINTIFF’S EMERGENCY MOTION 

FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO 

RESPOND TO DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO DISMISS AND 

RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW 

CAUSE AND FOR EXTENSION OF 

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

(First Request)

Plaintiff AMA Multimedia, LLC (“AMA”) requests an extension of time 

to respond to Defendant Marcin Wanat’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of 

Personal Jurisdiction and Response to Order to Show Cause (the “Motion 

to Dismiss”). 

This Court’s Sealed Order granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary 

Restraining Order provided that Defendant Wanat had until November 30, 

2015 to show cause as to why a preliminary injunction should not issue and 
- 2 -

Motion for Extension of Time 

2:15-cv-01674-ROS

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

that AMA had to respond to Wanat’s filing by 12:00 p.m. Arizona Time on 

December 1, 2015. However, multiple events warrant an extension. 

Defendant Wanat apparently filed his Motion in the early hours of 

November 30, 2015. However, he held back on serving it upon Plaintiff’s 

counsel until 12:49 a.m. Arizona Time on December 1. Naturally, at that 

time, AMA’s counsel was asleep, but was able to review it beginning at 

approximately 7:00 a.m. Arizona Time (or 6:00 a.m. Nevada Time).

Since Wanat did not merely file a document in response to the 

order, but a full blown Motion to Dismiss, this leaves an insufficient time to 

file a proper response, particularly since opposing Wanat’s Motion to 

Dismiss will require AMA to gather evidence refuting the Motion’s 

contentions, along with declarations authenticating that evidence. 

As such, Plaintiff requests a modest extension of time until 

December 8, 2015. Considering that this Court’s local rules give the nonmoving party 30 days to respond to a motion to dismiss, this request is 

reasonable and does not prejudice Mr. Wanat. 

Plaintiff additionally requests that the Temporary Restraining Order 

(“TRO”) be extended for an additional 7 days. In his Motion to Dismiss, 

Defendant Wanat does not deny that he transferred the 

<epornergay.com> and <eprncdn.com> domains to a foreign registrar to 

remove assets from the State of Arizona or that he disabled access to 

EPorner to Nevada and Arizona I.P addresses.

1 Given the limited impact 

 1

 Plaintiff AMA has withdrawn its request that Wanat restore access to EPorner to Nevada and 

Arizona residents. AMA is currently able to access the site through a proxy, as discussed in 

Doc. # 21 
- 3 -

Motion for Extension of Time 

2:15-cv-01674-ROS

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

of the TRO, and the fact that it would not deprive Wanat of his ability to 

use the <epornergay.com> and <eprncdn.com> domain names, there 

should be no reasonable objection to the extension of the TRO for this 

purpose. This is especially the case, given that the Plaintiff has withdrawn 

a portion of the request for the TRO, as discussed in Doc. # 21. This Court 

may extend the TRO without Wanat’s consent for up to 14 additional days 

pursuant to Rule 65(b)(2).

Pursuant to LRCiv 7.3, Plaintiff attempted to resolve this issue with 

Mr.Wanat’s counsel but was unsuccessful in doing so, as detailed in the 

attached Declaration of Ronald D. Green, Jr. Specifically, Plaintiff 

requested a mere 3-day extension but was only offered a 1-day extension 

by Wanat’s counsel, necessitating this Emergency Motion for Extension of 

Time. 

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS

On or about November 17, 2015, this Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion 

for Temporary Restraining Order, ordering Defendant Wanat to: (1) return 

the <epornergay.com> and <eprncdn.com> domain names to 

GoDaddy, the Arizona based registrar where the domains were registered 

until Wanat received notice of this suit; (2) not transfer those domains 

during the pendency of the TRO; (3) restore access to EPorner for 

individuals living in Arizona and Nevada; and (4) not delete or dispose of 

evidence or transfer assets located in the U.S. (See Doc. # 19 at 11-12.) 

The TRO further provided that Wanat was required to show cause why a 

preliminary injunction should not issue by November 30, 2015 and that 
- 4 -

Motion for Extension of Time 

2:15-cv-01674-ROS

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

Plaintiff was required to respond by noon on December 1, 2015, or 12 

hours after Defendant’s deadline for his response. (See id.) The Court’s 

Order did not contemplate that Plaintiff would need to respond to a full 

Motion to Dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, along with evidence, in 

that 12 hours, but that is now the case. 

Wanat apparently filed his Motion to Dismiss with this Court before 

noon on November 30, 2015. (See Email Exchange between counsel, 

attached hereto as Exhibit 1.) However, he did not provide a copy of it to 

Plaintiff’s counsel until 12:44 a.m. on December 1, after Plaintiff’s counsel 

had turned in for the night.2 (See id.) Plaintiff’s counsel did not see the 

Motion to Dismiss until approximately 5 hours before the response was due 

to this Court. 

After reviewing the Motion to Dismiss and determining that a proper 

response to it was impossible in the time allotted, Plaintiff’s counsel 

contacted Mr. Wanat’s counsel to request a 3-day extension of time until 

Friday, December 4, 2015 to respond. (See Exhibit 1.) Even this extension 

seemed untenable, but in the interest of compromise and in an attempt 

to resolve this reasonable issue of professional courtesy without Court 

intervention, Plaintiff’s counsel asked for an extension of the shortest 

possible duration. 

Mr. Wanat’s counsel refused the request and offered a 24-hour 

extension of time, which was quite unreasonable. This would still provide

Plaintiff with insufficient time to gather the evidence needed to defeat 

 2 Plaintiff’s counsel received the email at 11:44 p.m. PST.
- 5 -

Motion for Extension of Time 

2:15-cv-01674-ROS

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

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and draft a competent opposition. Plaintiff 

therefore requests an extension of 7 days from this Court. 

2.0 LEGAL ANALYSIS

2.1 Plaintiff is entitled to an extension of time to respond.

When this Court issued the TRO, it provided Plaintiff AMA with 12 

hours to respond to a response to the Order to Show Cause, not to a fullfledged Motion to Dismiss. While Mr. Wanat was certainly well within his 

rights to intertwine his response with a Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff should not 

be expected to file an opposition to that 20-page motion in 24 hours. In 

fact, this Court’s local rules provide that the non-moving party gets 30-

days to respond to a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction 

unless otherwise ordered by the Court. See LRCiv 12.1(b); LRCiv 56.1(d). 

Here, Plaintiff is willing to forego approximately 20 days of the time 

allotted to it by the local rules to respond to the Motion, in exchange for a 

short extension of the time required by the Court’s order to rebut the 

portions of the document that are directly relevant to the Court’s order. 

AMA is willing to forego nearly three weeks of response time in order to 

ensure that the TRO is not extended for an inordinate period of time and 

requests only 7 additional days to respond to the Motion to Dismiss. 

Defendant’s counsel has unreasonably refused that request, and the 24-

hour extension offered does not provide Plaintiff with sufficient time to 

respond to the Motion to Dismiss. Defendant will not be prejudiced in any 

manner by this short extension, and Plaintiff respectfully requests that this 

Motion be granted.
- 6 -

Motion for Extension of Time 

2:15-cv-01674-ROS

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

2.2 The TRO should be extended.

Rule 65(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows this Court 

to unilaterally extend temporary restraining orders by 14 days. Plaintiff 

requests that it do so for half that amount of time. First, the TRO merely 

preserves the status quo at the time the lawsuit was filed. The only 

affirmative action required of Defendant is to move the 

<epornergay.com> and <eprncdn.com> domain names back to the 

Arizona registrar where they resided before Defendant Wanat got notice 

of this suit. It does not deprive him of use of those domains or restrict his 

use of the domains. 

Moreover, despite Defendant’s acknowledgement that he has 

been in possession of the TRO for at least one week, he has not yet 

complied with it and moved the domain names back to GoDaddy. The 

TRO has thus far not affected Defendant Wanat in the slightest, and 

Plaintiff has not yet received the relief contemplated by the Order. No 

prejudice would result to Mr. Wanat through a reasonable extension of 

the TRO – most especially since Mr. Wanat has refused to comply with it to 

date, and one must presume that he will continue to refuse to comply 

with it for at least another 7 days. 

3.0 CONCLUSION

For the reasons expressed in this Motion, Plaintiff AMA requests a 7-

day extension of time to respond to the Motion to Dismiss and 7-day 

extension of the TRO. Both requested extensions are reasonable, and 
- 7 -

Motion for Extension of Time 

2:15-cv-01674-ROS

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

neither will prejudice Defendant Marcin Wanat. Plaintiff respectfully 

requests that this Motion be granted.

Dated: December 1, 2015 Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Marc J. Randazza

Marc J. Randazza, AZ Bar No. 27861

Ronald D. Green, Pro Hac Vice

Randazza Legal Group, PLLC

3625 S. Town Center Drive, Suite 150

Las Vegas, NV 89135

Attorneys for Plaintiff,

AMA Multimedia, LLC
- 8 -

Motion for Extension of Time 

2:15-cv-01674-ROS

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

Case No. 2:15-cv-01674-ROS

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on December 1, 2015, I electronically filed the 

foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I further 

certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document is being 

served via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by 

CM/ECF.

Respectfully Submitted,

Employee,

Randazza Legal Group, PLLC