Cress v. Nexo Capital Inc.
- Thomas Hixson
- 3:23-cv-00882
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 7
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate and have been consolidated across spelling variants.
In John Cress v. Nexo Capital, Judge Hixson approved the parties’ stipulation deeming filings timely, striking a duplicate, and delaying trial.
John Cress and Nexo Capital Inc.; the order also changes the scheduled pretrial conferences and trial date in their case.
What happened
In John Cress v. Nexo Capital Inc., Cress filed summary-judgment materials and a motion about expert testimony shortly after the August 7, 2026 deadline. His counsel said technical problems delayed the filings, which were completed shortly after midnight on August 8.
The parties agreed that Cress’s filings should be treated as timely and that Nexo did not need more time to respond. They also agreed that a duplicate filing by Nexo should be stricken and that the pretrial and trial dates should be moved to April 1, April 29, and May 10, 2027.
Judge Thomas S. Hixson ordered the stipulation into effect. The court deemed Cress’s filings timely, struck ECF No. 151 as duplicative, changed the listed pretrial and trial dates, and left the previously agreed opposition and reply deadlines unchanged.
The detailed version
- Cress v. Nexo Capital Inc. · No. 3:23-cv-00882
- Thomas Hixson
- Aug. 12, 2026
Background
The court’s scheduling order set August 7, 2026, as the deadline for dispositive motions. John Cress submitted an administrative sealing motion at 11:40 p.m. that day and attempted to submit his motion for partial summary judgment at approximately 11:52 p.m. His counsel reported unexpected technical problems requiring troubleshooting and re-uploads. The summary-judgment motion was filed at 12:19 a.m. on August 8, and the motion concerning the opinions and testimony of Dr. Randall Valentine was filed at 12:46 a.m.
Cress and Nexo Capital Inc. jointly asked the court to treat Cress’s summary-judgment filings as timely. Nexo agreed that it did not need additional time to prepare its opposition. The parties also explained that Nexo had filed duplicate versions of an administrative sealing motion. They agreed that ECF Nos. 150 and 152 constituted Nexo’s operative filing and that ECF No. 151 should be stricken or disregarded as duplicative. Cress did not oppose that relief.
Requested Schedule Changes
The parties further requested changes to three scheduling-order dates. The proposed dates were:
- Pretrial Conference: February 18, 2027, changed to April 1, 2027 - Final Pretrial Conference: March 18, 2027, changed to April 29, 2027 - Trial: March 29, 2027, changed to May 10, 2027
The stipulation stated that the new dates fell on the same days of the week and preserved the same spacing between the events. It attributed the request to the expected birth of the lead trial counsel’s child around February 27, 2027, and the counsel’s desire to spend time with his family during March. The parties stated that all other scheduling-order deadlines would remain in effect.
Order
Judge Thomas S. Hixson ordered the stipulation into effect. The order deemed Cress’s summary-judgment filings—Docket Nos. 154, 155, and 156—timely filed before midnight Pacific time on August 7, 2026. It struck ECF No. 151 as duplicative, modified the three pretrial and trial dates, and confirmed that the previously stipulated opposition and reply deadlines for the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment remained unchanged. The order did not decide the merits of the parties’ claims or summary-judgment motions.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.