Laura Larson v. Warner Bros Entertainment, Inc, et al

Filing 16

Filed (ECF) Appellees DC Comics and Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc. in 11-55863, Appellants DC Comics and Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc. in 11-56034 Motion to extend time to file Answering brief until 03/06/2012. Date of service: 01/05/2012. [8021641] [11-55863, 11-56034] (DP)

Download PDF
Appeal Nos. 11-55863, 11-56034 United States Court of Appeals FOR THE Ninth Circuit Laura Siegel Larson, Plaintiff, Counterclaim-Defendant, Appellant, and Cross-Appellee v. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. and DC Comics, Defendants, Counterclaimants, Appellees, and Cross-Appellants APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA THE HONORABLE OTIS D. WRIGHT, II CASE NO. CV-04-8400 ODW (RZX) UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF DUE DATE FOR PRINCIPAL AND RESPONSE BRIEF OF CROSS-APPELLANTS AND APPELLEES WARNER BROS. ENTERTAINMENT INC. AND DC COMICS O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP PERKINS LAW OFFICE, P.C. DANIEL M. PETROCELLI (CA S.B. # 97802) MATTHEW T. KLINE (CA S.B. # 211640) CASSANDRA L. SETO (CA S.B. # 246608) 1999 AVENUE OF THE STARS, 7TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CA 90067-6035 TELEPHONE: (310) 553-6700 FACSIMILE: (310) 246-6779 PATRICK T. PERKINS (NY S.B. # 2603371) 1711 ROUTE 9D COLD SPRING, NY 10516 TELEPHONE: (845) 265-2820 FACSIMILE: (845) 265-2819 Attorneys for Cross-Appellants and Appellees Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. and DC Comics Pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 31-2.2(b), cross-appellants and appellees Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. and DC Comics (collectively, “DC”) request a 43-day extension of the due date for their Principal and Response Brief from January 23, 2012, to March 6, 2012. Cross-appellee and appellant Laura Siegel Larson has consented to this extension and does not oppose DC’s motion. Declaration of Daniel M. Petrocelli (“Petrocelli Decl.”) Ex. A. DC has not previously sought any extension. Ms. Larson filed an unopposed motion to extend the due date for her Principal Brief by 45 days, and the Court granted that motion. Appeal No. 11-55863, Docket No. 11. There is good cause for granting this motion given the complexity of the issues in this case, the need for parity in briefing, and the trial schedule of DC’s lead counsel, Daniel Petrocelli, who has two federal trials set to commence on January 24, 2012 and February 7, 2012, respectively. Petrocelli Decl. ¶ 3. No transcript has been designated, and thus no court reporter is in default with regard to any designated transcript. -1- DC has exercised diligence, and upon the granting of this motion, will file its initial brief on or before March 6, 2012. Dated: January 5, 2012 O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP By: /s/ Daniel M. Petrocelli Daniel M. Petrocelli Attorneys for Cross-Appellants and Appellees Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. and DC Comics -2- STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES Pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 28-2.6, DC identifies the following related cases currently pending before this Court: 1. Pacific Pictures Corporation et al. v. DC Comics, Appeal No. 11-71844 (9th Cir.) (filed 2011); and 2. Pacific Pictures Corporation et al. v. DC Comics, Appeal No. 11-56934 (9th Cir.) (filed 2011). Dated: January 5, 2012 O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP By: /s/ Daniel M. Petrocelli Daniel M. Petrocelli Attorneys for Cross-Appellants and Appellees Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. and DC Comics CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE Pursuant to Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 27(d)(2) and 32(a), I hereby certify that this Unopposed Motion For Extension Of Due Date For Principal And Response Brief Of Cross-Appellants And Appellees Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. And DC Comics is proportionately spaced, has a typeface of 14 points or more, and does not exceed 20 pages. Dated: January 5, 2012 O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP By: /s/ Daniel M. Petrocelli Daniel M. Petrocelli Attorneys for Cross-Appellants and Appellees Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. and DC Comics

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?