Eli Lilly and Company v. Gitmed et al

Filing 32

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT JOHN GITMEDS MOTION FOR 120 DAY EXTENSION OF TIMEORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT JOHN GITMED THIRTY (30) DAYS FROM THE DATE OF SERVICE OF THIS ORDER TO FILE HIS RESPONSIVE PLEADING. Defendant John Gitmeds motion for a one hundred twe nty (120) day extension of time to file his responsive pleading is DENIED; and Defendant John Gitmed is granted thirty days (30) from the date of service of this order to file his responsive pleading. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 8/30/2016. (Hernandez, M)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ELI LILLY AND COMPANY, Plaintiff, 12 13 14 15 Case No. 1:16 -cv-00178-DAD-SAB ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT JOHN GITMED’S MOTION FOR 120 DAY EXTENSION OF TIME v. JOHN DEREK GITMED, et al., ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT JOHN GITMED THIRTY (30) DAYS FROM THE DATE OF SERVICE OF THIS ORDER TO FILE HIS RESPONSIVE PLEADING Defendants. 16 (ECF No. 31) 17 18 On February 8, 2016, plaintiff Eli Lilly filed a complaint in this action against defendants 19 John Derek Gitmed, Holly Gitmed, Felicia Gitmed, and Anthony Pollino, Jr. (ECF No. 1.) On 20 August 3, 2016, defendant John Gitmed filed a motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 27.) On August 9, 21 2016, the Court denied defendant John Gitmed’s motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 28.) The Court 22 ordered defendant John Gitmed to file a pleading responsive to the complaint within thirty (30) 23 days from the date of service of this order. 24 On August 29, 2016, defendant John Gitmed filed a motion for an extension of time to 25 file his responsive pleading. (ECF No. 31.) Defendant John Gitmed requests a one hundred 26 twenty (120) day extension of time, or until December 18, 2016, to file his responsive pleading. 27 (ECF No. 31.) Defendant John Gitmed states that the additional time is needed in order to 28 permit him to investigate this claim and to prepare appropriate responsive pleadings. (ECF No. 1 1 31.) Defendant John Gitmed did not provide any additional information in his request. Based 2 upon a review of defendant John Gitmed’s request for an extension of time, the Court denies 3 defendant John Gitmed’s motion for a one hundred twenty day extension of time to file his 4 responsive pleading. However, the Court grants defendant John Gitmed thirty (30) days from the 5 date of service of this order to file his responsive pleading. Defendant John Gitmed is advised 6 that further extensions of time to continue deadlines will only be granted upon a showing of good 7 cause. Specific and detailed showings of good cause are favored over general requests for 8 extensions of time. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 9 1. 10 Defendant John Gitmed’s motion for a one hundred twenty (120) day extension of time to file his responsive pleading is DENIED; and 11 2. 12 Defendant John Gitmed is granted thirty days (30) from the date of service of this order to file his responsive pleading. 13 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 Dated: August 30, 2016 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?