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)
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?