Lions Gate Entertainment Inc. v. TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation et al

Filing 20

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT by Judge Dean D. Pregerson: Upon Plaintiff's Ex Parte Motion 14 , Defendants must submit their responsive filing no later than 14 days after the date of the order ruling on the pending motion to dismiss in the Southern District of New York case. (gk)

1
2

O

3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

LIONS GATE ENTERTAINMENT
INC., a Delaware
corporation,

13
14
15
16
17
18
19

Plaintiff,
v.
TD AMERITRADE HOLDING
CORPORAITON, a Delaware
corporation; TD AMERITRADE
SERVICES COMPANY, INC., a
Delaware corporation; HAVAS
WORLDWIDE NEW YORK, INC., a
Delaware corporation,
Defendants.
___________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CV 15-05024 DDP (Ex)
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S EX
PARTE MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO
FILE RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT
[Dkt. No. 14.]

20
21

On June 26, 2015, Defendants filed a declaratory judgment

22

action in the United States District Court for the Southern

23

District of New York.

24

Plaintiff filed a complaint in the United States District Court for

25

the Central District of California.

26

complaint in the New York case, Plaintiff’s attorney’s filed a

27

motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, to transfer venue to

28

Central District of California.

(Ex Parte Appl. at 4.)

On July 2, 2015,

(Id at 5.)

(Id.)

In response to the

Defendants filed an amended

1

complaint, and Plaintiff renewed the motion to dismiss during a

2

conference in the Southern District of New York with District Judge

3

Katherine B. Forrest on July 29, 2015.

4

told the parties she will deliver a ruling on the plaintiff’s

5

motion by September 21, 2015.

6

application with this Court to extend the time to respond to

7

Plaintiff’s California complaint to 14 days after Judge Forrest

8

rules on the pending motion to dismiss.

9

(Id.)

(Id.)

Judge Forrest has

Defendant filed an ex parte

(Id at 6.)

Pursuant to Local Rule 7.19, the attorney making the ex parte

10

application must make a reasonable, good faith effort to notify all

11

other parties of the date and substance, if known, of the ex parte

12

application, and must also advise the court of efforts to contact

13

other counsel and whether other counsel opposes the application.

14

Here, although they did not end up communicating directly,

15

Defendant’s attorney made reasonable efforts to contact plaintiff’s

16

counsel regarding the subject of an extension and notified the

17

Court of counsel’s opposition.

18

(Appl. at 6.)

Because the content of Defendants’ answer or other response to

19

the complaint will presumably mirror or incorporate the arguments

20

currently before the New York court if that case is dismissed or

21

transferred here, it is logical to wait until after that court

22

rules on Plaintiff’s motion before requiring a responsive pleading

23

here.

24

14 days after the date of the order ruling on the pending motion to

25

dismiss in the Southern District of New York case.

26

IT IS SO ORDERED.

27

Dated: August 21, 2015

Defendants must submit their responsive filing no later than

DEAN D. PREGERSON
United States District Judge

28
2